Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Meteorological Research (Aircraft)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what type of aircraft is used by the Royal Air Force for carrying out research in respect of meteorology; and what is the maximum ceiling of such aircraft.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Mosquito P.R.34 and Halifax aircraft are the main types used. Their maximum ceilings are 40,000 ft. and 28,000 ft., respectively.

Air-Commodore: Harvey: Is the Secretary of State not aware that two weeks ago he said that research into the substratosphere was being carried out with balloons; and, in view of the lead this country has in jet aircraft, will he pay special attention to seeing that we have aircraft to investigate turbulence at these altitudes?

Mr. Henderson: The desirability of adding a jet aircraft to the Meteorological Research Flight is in fact under consideration, but we are having to wait until the problem of measuring the air temperature from high speed jet aircraft is developed in the form of a thermometer, which is not in existence at the moment.

Mr. Pickthorn: What about turbulence at low levels? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman consulted the Minister of Health?

Operations, Malaya

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many hours flying and what number of sorties

by the Royal Air Force have taken place in dealing with terrorists in Malaya.

Mr. A. Henderson: Twenty-four thousand hours flying and 19,000 sorties have been carried out in dealing with terrorists in Malaya. Of these, 2,800 hours flying and 1,860 sorties were on bombing and ground attack.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Royal Air Force has sufficient equipment and men in Malaya to deal with this problem?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I think that, not only have they sufficient equipment, but that they are using that equipment most efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Gallacher: How does it come about that the Secretary of State accepts that these men who are fighting for the liberation of their own country should be referred to as "terrorists" and "thugs"?

Mr. Speaker: The Question only asks how many hours flying and how many sorties there have been, and does not refer to liberation.

Mepal Aerodrome

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to make a further statement about the future use of Mepal Aerodrome; and if he will allow foot passengers and vehicular traffic to cross direct to and from Sutton, which is the main shopping centre for Mepal.

Mr. A. Henderson: As I said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 25th February, 1948, Mepal airfield is being purchased by my Department for use by the R.A.F., and until the airfield is used again for flying all the land, other than that covered with runways and buildings, is available for agriculture. Foot passengers are allowed to cross the airfield direct between Sutton and Mepal, but the route is not suitable for vehicles. As the result of representations from the county council, I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport whether this road can be made* fit for vehicles or whether an alternative route is required.

Major Legge-Bourke: When the Secretary of State is making his decision will he bear in mind that this airfield has


been unused by the R.A.F. in the intervening period, and that there is really nothing to stop vehicles using the perimeter if only he will let them go in?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think that there are very substantial objections to that suggestion, but I must co-operate with the local authorities.

Personnel (Maintenance Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air the annual cost of maintaining a conscript in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. A. Henderson: Two hundred and forty pounds..

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that a previous Secretary of State for Air estimated that it was £500; and can we take it that this figure was an exaggeration?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think it is a question of whether it was exaggerated. It was certainly different.

Training, West Mailing

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the arrangements that aircraft at the Royal Air Force Station, West Mailing, should be grounded during the Kent Assizes, what alternative arrangements will be made for training at West Mailing during that period.

Mr. A. Henderson: No arrangements have been made for the grounding of aircraft at the Royal Air Force Station, West Mailing, during the period of the Kent Assizes. The question of alternative training arrangements does not therefore arise.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Officer Commanding, West Mailing, voluntarily went to the assize court and explained that the aircraft concerned were not aircraft of the Royal Air Force; that the officer was spoken to by an official at the court and reprimanded like a small boy; and is the very same Air Force that saved this country in battle above that court in 1940 to be insulted in this way?

Mr. Henderson: It is quite true that the officer in question did go voluntarily to the court to be of any possible

assistance, but it is not for me to comment on the actions of particular individuals.

Panshanger Airfield

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to make a statement about the future use of Panshanger Airfield.

Mr. A. Henderson: It is intended to retain Panshanger airfield for R.A.F. flying purposes until the development of Welwyn Garden City makes this impracticable.

Mr. Beswick: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say what further term of life this means for this airfield?

Mr. Henderson: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning that it will be at least three to four years.

Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say if he is in full consultation with the development corporation of Welwyn Garden City, as this airfield very much affects the development of that town?

Mr. Henderson: I am more in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning who has a direct responsibility.

Mr. Beswick: Can my right hon. Friend say when a decision is to be made about the use of this airfield after this period of three or four years because it is impossible to make long-term planning arrangements until a decision is made?

Mr. Henderson: That will depend upon the development of Welwyn Garden City, and I am not in a position to say at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Dyce Aerodrome

Mr. Eric Gandar Dower: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that Aberdeen Aerodrome Fuel Supplies, Limited, hold a 42 years lease from 1934 conferring the sole right to supply fuel and oil to Dyce aerodrome; and why he has offered facilities to other suppliers while continuing to hold Aberdeen Aero-


drome Fuel Supplies requisitioned since 2nd September, 1939.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Yes, Sir; but the rights under this lease are not exercisable over the aerodrome while it is held on requisition. Consequently my Department is in a position to pursue its normal policy at aerodromes under its control of offering facilities to any aviation fuel and oil supplier which wishes to trade.

Mr. Dower: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Aberdeen Aerodrome Fuel Supplies, Limited, by arrangement with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, rented from the R.A.F. a mobile petrol bowser 2½ years ago, that it was delivered to the aerodrome and has not been used since because no rights to sell petrol have been given?

Mr. Lindgren: The Aberdeen Fuel Supplies Company have rights to supply, but only on the same basis as any other merchant on the aerodrome.

Mr. Dower: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Aerodrome Company can operate in selling petrol against the principal suppliers, who are Shell-Mex, Limited?

Mr.' Lindgren: So far as this case is concerned, it is an instance where public control encourages free enterprise and competition while private ownership advocates monopoly.

Prestwick Airport

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, if he will state how many civilian aircraft and passengers were passed through Prestwick Airport each year since 1946.

Mr. Lindgren: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that last year Prestwick was even busier than ever before, and since his Ministry has been established Prestwick, instead of being ruined, is getting steadily more prosperous, and will his figures prove that?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, most certainly.

Following is the reply:

Year
Aircraft Movements
Passengers Handled


1946 (Apr. to Dec. only)
3,866
35,846


1947
8,588
83,562


1948
10,829
98,842


1949 (Jan. to Aug. only)
5,236
75,182


Total: Apr. 1946 to Aug. 1949
28,519
293,432


Note: The figures for April, 1946, to February, 1947, refer to scheduled services only, and do not include passengers in transit. From March, 1947, onwards the figures include both scheduled and non-scheduled air transport movements, and passengers arriving, departing and in transit.

Aircraft and Equipment (Value)

Sir Waldron Simmers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will state the cost price of the aircraft and equipment in the possession of his Department; and the present value, allowing for depreciation and loss.

Mr. Lindgren: Two hundred and forty-eight thousand pounds. The depreciated value is £168,000. In addition my Department has possession of four old aircraft which originally cost £34,000. These are to be disposed of shortly and I am unable to state their present value.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give me a promise to read the article on New Zealand in today's "Financial Times"

Tudor Freighters

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether his Department has yet taken delivery of the Tudor freighters aircraft; what was the cost of conversion of these aircraft, and what is to be their future use.

Mr. Lindgren: No Tudor freighters have yet been delivered to my Department. It would be contrary to established practice to disclose the cost of conversion. It is proposed to sell these aircraft, and my Department is considering approaches from certain interested companies.

Mr. Maclay: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say which Department is responsible for the supervision of conversion?

Mr. Lindgren: I think that it is the Ministry of Supply, but I shall require notice before I can give an authoritative reply.

Mr. Beswick: Can my hon. Friend say how they are going to fix the price? Is it to be on a cost plus basis or what?

Mr. Lindgren: The price is arranged with the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Beswick: Can my hon. Friend say why his Department have bought these aircraft without even knowing what the price was and without having any user in mind?

Mr. Lindgren: These were aircraft of the old Tudor class which were going to come into civil transport operation, but which, because the Tudors ceased to be used for civil passenger operation, were transformed into freighters.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Allied High Commissioners (Statements of Policy)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will endeavour to ensure that, in future, statements upon Western German affairs issued by the Allied High Commissioners shall be jointly agreed before publication and, as far as possible, synchronised.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): At his recent meeting in Paris my right hon. Friend found himself in complete agreement with Mr. Acheson and Monsieur Schuman, on the desirability of coordinating statements of policy by the Allied High Commissioners in Germany.

Export Trade

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken in the interest of British recovery to divert the German export drive to markets in Eastern Europe; and what measure of success has so far been achieved.

Mr. Mayhew: As one of the Occupying Powers His Majesty's Government is committed, in association with the French and United States Governments, to ensure that German trade conforms

with the principles of the European Recovery Programme which is in itself a safeguard for British interests. Within this framework it is the policy of the Occupation Authorities to encourage the development of Western German trade with Eastern Europe which is one of its natural markets. As a consequence trade agreements have been concluded with a number of Eastern European countries envisaging a volume of trade to the value of approximately £70 million in each direction.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that has so far been made, and does he realise that unless this progress is extended it is quite likely that the low wage economy in Western Germany will ultimately have a serious effect on our own exports?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, we appreciate that it is necessary to encourage this trade. The reason that further progress has not been made is certainly not due to any lack of encouragement by the occupying authorities.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that no British industry is protected in the way suggested in this Question until it is thoroughly efficient?

Mr. Pickthorn: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is within the ordinary rules of international law and comity that an occupying Power should use its position to direct and control the external trade of the State occupied?

Mr. Mayhew: Clearly we have responsibility here. I would make it clear that we encourage what should be regarded, I think, as a natural development of trade with Germany and we are not protecting our own competitive interests in any way.

Oil and Rubber Plant

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what use will the nine synthetic and rubber plants, now excluded from the dismantling list in Western Germany, be put; and whether it is intended to maintain the illegality of German manufacture of oil and rubber.

Mr. Mayhew: The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." The answer to the first part is, that subject to the maintenance of the prohibitions laid down in the Washington Agreement of April, 1949, the future use of these plants is now a matter for German decision.

Civil Aviation (German Employees)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the concern caused by his decision to allow Germans to be employed in the Civil Aviation Branch of the Control Commission; and if he will withdraw his consent and so remove a potential threat to world peace.

Mr. Mayhew: It is not proposed to allow the Germans either to build aircraft or to fly or to gain knowledge of modern developments in aviation, and my right hon. Friend does not agree that the proposal to employ Germans on subordinate duties on civil airfields represents a threat to world peace. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, no intention of withdrawing his consent to the proposals we have put forward.

Mr. Lipson: Is not the action taken the thin end of the wedge, and, in view of the use the Germans made of civil aviation after the first world war in building up the Luftwaffe, can we have an assurance that all possible care will be taken to prevent it happening again?

Mr. Mayhew: We are aware of the importance of this matter, and of the factor the hon. Member mentions, but, at the other extreme, to prevent Germans doing such work as clerical and stores work on airfields, is carrying control to ridiculous limits.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is a very dangerous situation, and that if the Germans are allowed to start, it will be the beginning of what happened in the years before the second World War?

Mr. Mayhew: My reply explains that we are aware of that. As I have said, we are determined that the Germans shall not build or fly aircraft, or gain modern knowledge of aviation.

Air-Commodore Harvey: That is not good enough.

Oral Answers to Questions — ERITREA

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that from January, 1949, the British Administration in Eritrea has ceased to allow the import of wheat from Ethiopia; to what extent this prohibition refers purely to wheat consumed in Eritrea itself; and whether he will review this regulation in view of the fact that it is causing serious distress among the farmers of the adjacent Ethiopian province.

Mr. Mayhew: No imports of wheat for consumption in Eritrea were required in January and February of this year because adequate stocks were available. Imports started again in March and are continuing. The movement of wheat in transit through Eritrea was not affected.

Mr. Freeman: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that there is now no prohibition on the importation of wheat from Ethiopia into Eritrea?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. Imports have started again.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, having regard to the fact that the United Nations' Political Committee has proposed the sending of another commission of inquiry to Eritrea, and the postponement of the decision on the future of this former colony for a further year, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will uphold in the General Assembly of the United Nations the policy of the reunion of Ethiopia and Eritrea sponsored by Britain at the last Assembly and urge an immediate decision.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government have not changed their views in regard to the best solution of the problem of the disposal of Eritrea, but they have accepted the resolution of the General Assembly providing for postponement of a decision, and consider that the only attitude which they can properly adopt is one of strict neutrality pending the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent decision by the General Assembly.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that prior to the Italian aggression and domination Eritrea was politically united


with Ethiopia, will His Majesty's Government continue to urge upon the United Nations the desirability of a reunion along similar lines?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that is now a matter for the Commission who will, no doubt, take into consideration the factor which my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the United Nations proposes to send a further commission of inquiry to Eritrea, and in the interests of democratic government, he will instruct the British Administration of Eritrea to prepare an electoral roll for the capital of that territory, in order that the opinion of the population of the capital may be adequately expressed on the question of the future disposal of the colony, and any other matter of importance which may arise, with proper safeguards against personation, intimidation and corrupt practice and to preserve the inviolability of the ballot.

Mr. Maybew: No, Sir. The General Assembly of the United Nations has decided to establish the Commission to which my hon. Friend refers and it is for the Commission itself to decide how it should carry out the instructions it has been given by the General Assembly.

Mr. Freeman: If Eritrea is to be consulted on the matter of her own future, is it not desirable that proper facilities be provided for her along the lines indicated, so that she can express her own desires in a democratic manner?

Mr. Mayhew: It is the principal task of the Commission to discover the views of the inhabitants. I do not think that action such as that is called for by His Majesty's Government.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when this Commission appears in Eritrea there will be no diminution in the control by the British of Eritrea during that period?

Mr. Mayhew: No, we shall carry on the administration as usual.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Is it not already quite clear what are the wishes of the people of Eritrea?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN TRIBES (U.N.O. REPRESENTATIONS)

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative at Lake Success on 22nd November, 1949, voted with the South African representative to exclude the Reverend Michael Scott from making representations to United Nations Organisation regarding the treatment of certain native tribes in South-West Africa by the South African Government.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he instructed the British representative to vote against permission being given to Rev. Michael Scott, a missionary, to state the grievances of natives of South-West Africa to the United Nations Trusteeship Committee.

Mr. Mayhew: His Majesty's Government consider that a hearing in the Committees of the General Assembly of a private person claiming to represent a group of individuals is a thoroughly undesirable precedent, and might lead to requests for a hearing from any group of persons with a complaint against their own Government. The Assembly Committees are not the appropriate bodies for such a task.

Mr. Wilkes: Can my hon. Friend enlighten us on this? Since the South African Government have refused to send any reports of German South-West Africa to the United Nations, and since no provision exists for referring these matters to any tribunals, how can the United Nations find out what is happening, unless some hearing is given to non-governmental organisations and non-governmental individuals?

Mr. Mayhew: The question is to what extent this is a matter for the Government of South Africa alone, and to what extent it is a matter for the United Nations. It has now been decided that that question is to be put to the International Court.

Captain Crookshank: Will the Under-Secretary make it quite clear that nowadays there is no such place as "German" South-West Africa?

Mr. Lipson: Would it not have been more in accordance with the British traditions of championing the weak if


His Majesty's Government had not taken refuge behind a technical point? May I ask for an assurance that in future the policy of the Government will be influenced by justice and not by political expediency?

Mr. Mayhew: I should make it clear that I am making no comment whatever on the justice or injustice of the case put forward by the Reverend Michael Scott. I am saying that if we allow the procedure of the United Nations and the Charter of the United Nations to be twisted in this way there is no knowing where it will end.

Mr. Driberg: Whatever the legalistic evasions behind which my hon. Friend has to take refuge may be, may I ask whether he has consulted with the Colonial Secretary, and if he is aware of the grave repercussions throughout the Colonial Empire of our failure to stand up to South Africa on this matter?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not accept the implication in that question. My right hon. Friend has, of course, been in constant touch with this problem.

Mr. Mikardo: Since my hon. Friend in his reply to a previous supplementary question takes satisfaction from the fact that this has now been referred to The Hague Court, can he say why our representative did not support this?

Mr. Mayhew: We have all along taken the view that it should be referred to the Court. I regret that I must ask for notice of the particular aspects of the resolution which made it necessary for us to abstain. We have always championed the principle of sending it to the Court.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Reverend Michael Scott is accepted as a voice on behalf of those who otherwise would have no voice at all? Is he aware that he has a tremendous influence in South Africa?

Mr. Mayhew: As the United Kingdom delegate made it clear on that occasion, it is open to the Reverend Michael Scott to make his views known in many other forums, and he has done so. But we must maintain the procedure and Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say what was wrong with the procedure adopted, inasmuch as the great majority of the nations which took part did not think there was any breach or twisting, and what does he think is the right method for a minority group to have its infringed rights investigated by the United Nations?

Mr. Mayhew: There are other ways of raising these matters outside the United Nations. Within the United Nations there is discussion on a convention on human rights where, under certain safeguards, it may be possible to raise these matters. But to raise them in the way that this was raised, I can only repeat, is a very dangerous precedent.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken in connection with the work of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, to secure great co-ordination between the industries and economic systems of the Marshall Plan countries and to prevent overlapping and high costs of production.

Mr. Mayhew: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the general objectives outlined by him underlie many of the activities of O.E.E.C. As examples of progress achieved, I would quote: first, the steps which have been taken to free intra-European trade from import restrictions on the lines of the proposals first put forward last summer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, secondly, the studies which are proceeding as a result of directives laid down by the organisation of the investment proposed by the participating countries in the oil and steel industries.

Mr. Price: Would not an understanding on this matter contribute towards lowering costs of production, and thereby help to solve the difficult problems of the dollar deficiency for the whole of the European economy?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. But the relaxation of import restrictions, to which I have referred, should contribute to lowering unduly high costs of production in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will discuss the Council of Europe with Commonwealth Ministers in his forthcoming visit to the Colombo conference.

Mr. Mayhew: The agenda for the conference has not yet been finally settled, and the hon. Member will appreciate that I am not in a position to give him a definite assurance that this specific question will be discussed.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my hon. Friend convey to the Foreign Secretary that this is a unique opportunity to obtain good understanding with the Dominions, in view of the fact that they are constantly told that European co-operation is being limited by imperial commitments? Will he take note of the unanimous resolution that was passed yesterday by the United Kingdom Council?

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is certainly aware of that point. I am unable to give the assurance because I must know the views of the other Governments first.

Mrs. Leah Manning: In view of the unanimous resolution which was passed by the Council, does not my hon. Friend feel that the sooner the position is clarified the better for the growth of the Council? Can he think of any better way of getting it on the agenda at Colombo?

Mr. Mayhew: "I would point out that this has often been discussed in the past with the Commonwealth Ministers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not possible that the views of some Commonwealth countries may change, as in New Zealand, where the Conservatives have just won a resounding victory.

Mr. K. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will publish a White Paper on the recommendations of the Strasbourg Assembly to the Committee of Ministers, together with subsequent communications between the Committee of Ministers and the President of the Assembly.

Mr. Mayhew: A full report on the proceedings of the First Session of the

Council of Europe was published as a White Paper on 25th October. This document contained a full text of the recommendations submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the Consultative Assembly. A report on the Second Session of the Committee of Ministers and of the second meeting of the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly is in course of preparation and will be laid before the House within the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA HIGH COMMISSION

Mr. Platts-Miils: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the purpose of the recent conference held in Nairobi under the chairmanship of the Governor of Kenya, and attended by the Commander-in-Chief East Indies Station, the General Officer commanding East Africa, the Air Officer commanding, the Governors of Tanganyika and Uganda and the British Resident at Zanzibar.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the fourth routine meeting of the East Africa High Commission, held in August last. The purpose of such meetings is to discuss matters arising within the purview of the High Commission.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does that mean that this extraordinary assembly of high powered officers was there to consider what is to be done in the face of the rising discontent of the native peoples of West Africa, and may we assume, as a matter of course, that a report of the deliberations was sent to the American chiefs of staff?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (ROAD CONSTRUCTION)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the programme for road construction in Kenya for the next 10 years.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Kenya Government is considering recommendations by a special road committee that there should be a £9 million road programme during 1951–1962 and a road authority to lay


down policy and priorities. Meanwhile, a considerable road programme is already in hand and this will continue during 1950.

Mr. Erroll: Is there any danger of this programme being slowed down as a result of the personal views of the Governor of the Colony?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir; the programme is under constant view, but there is no intention to slow it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA Enugu Colliery (Dispute)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the rates of pay for the miners in the coalmining area of Enugu, Nigeria, and, in particular, the rates of pay of the miners employed at the Obwetti mines and the Iva Valley mine.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the answer is long, and contains detailed figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The rates of pay in the Enugu colliery, which includes the Obwetti and the Iva Valley mines, are as follows:

1. Hewers are graded as Special Labour, Grade I, with a basic wage of 3s. to 4s. a day. They also draw additional pay amounting to 1s. 1½ d. per tub, together with seniority pay of 3d. per shift after five years service, and underground allowance of 4d. per shift. Average earnings are estimated as between 7s. and 7s. 6d. a day.
2. Tubmen are graded as Special Labour, Grade I, with a basic wage of 3s. to 4s. a day. In addition they draw seniority pay of 1d. per shift after five years service and underground allowance of 4d. per shift. Average earnings are about 4s. a day.
3. Haulage men draw 2s. 3d. a day plus underground allowance of 4d. a shift and seniority pay of 1d. a shift.
4. Other grades fall principally under the category of craftsmen earning £96 to £160 a year, artisans earning £72 to £160 a year and various subordinate grades earning within the range of £52 to £120.

Mr. Gallacher: Will not the figures show what the right hon. Gentleman, in his Socialist days, used to call the imperialist exploitation of the native peoples? Will they not justify the miners striking for a decent living wage?

Mr. Creech Jones: This was not a strike of miners for a decent living wage. Considering the cost of living and the background of Africa, I think the wages are fair for the work done.

Mr. John Paton: Do the figures include the average hours per shift work and, if not, will my right hon. Friend see that they are included?

Mr. Creech Jones: If they are not included I will see that they are.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Is it not a fact that the mines in question are Government owned?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. They are under the ownership of the Nigerian Government.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say how the wages paid to these miners compare with those paid to similar workers in that part of the Continent?

Mr. Creech Jones: The wages compare very favourably indeed.

Mr. Awbery: Has a labour office been set up in Nigeria, have trade union advisers been sent out and is the miners' union recognised as the official union in this matter?

Mr. Creech Jones: The answer to all those points is in the affirmative, and the labour department of the Nigerian Government has given considerable help to the miners in their trade union activities.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the absenteeism figures in those mines are less than half the figures in this country?

Mr. S. Silverman: As the Government have already decided that the wages paid are fair for the work done, and that the other matters which my hon. Friend has asked about are also satisfactory, can my right hon. Friend tell us what there is left for the Commission of Inquiry to inquire into?

Mr. Creech Jones: I thought it was within the knowledge of my hon. Friend that there had been a very grave and tragic event at Enugu, and that certain labour difficulties had emerged. The inquiry is for the purpose of studying the


whole position and reporting to the Government on the events which have taken place and the steps which need to be taken to improve the present state of affairs.

Mr. Silverman: I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood my question. I was not referring to the Commission which he is sending out but the Commission of Inquiry into labour disputes, whose work was already proceeding.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for how long the trade unions concerned have been officially recognised at the Enugu colliery; how many workers have been dismissed in connection with industrial disputes in 1949; and how long the present claim for a wage increase has been under consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Colliery Workers' Union at Enugu was registered in 1941, and has been recognised for negotiation purposes except during a period when it was found not to be representative of the workers. The union is represented on the Colliery Whitley Council which was formed in 1948. When the "go-slow" strike began early in November the newly formed Colliery Board, on which Nigerians serve, made every effort to get the men to resume full work; it was only after these efforts had failed that 150 hewers were dismissed. As I have already said, my information is that no wage claim was under negotiation at the time.

Mr. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend confirm the report that the Nigerian trade union movement are cooperating with the Government to avoid the spreading of disorder arising out of this unfortunate incident, in particular in connection with the recent proposed demonstration in Lagos, which was banned?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. It is true that there is co-operation between the authorities and the trade union movement in Nigeria.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it that the shooting of over 20 miners is an "unfortunate incident"? That is not the language which the Labour Party used at Tonypandy.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the specific nature of the industrial dispute at Enugu; at what date the deadlock between the Nigeria Africa Mineworkers Union and the Employers Association was first notified; what action the labour commissioner took when the association refused to go to arbitration; and, apart from the inquiry into the disturbance, whether the industrial dispute will now go to arbitration.

Mr. Creech Jones: According to my information, no trade dispute was declared, nor was there any refusal on the part of the colliery management to go to arbitration; but it is for the Commission of Inquiry to investigate these matters and establish the facts.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to take it that the reports in some parts of the Press that there was a refusal to arbitrate on the part of the so-called employers' association is quite incorrect?

Mr. Creech Jones: My information is that it is incorrect.

Mr. Awbery: Could my right hon. Friend say if the trade unions refused to go to arbitration, and could he tell us at the same time what extent of the trouble is due to wage problems, and how much to nationalist aspirations?

Mr. Creech Jones: I must leave this matter to the Inquiry.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Would my right hon. Friend give the House the composition of the colliery board and, what is the representation of Africans and trade unionists on it?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would desire notice of that. I can inform the House, however, that a number of Nigerians are serving on the board.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the asking of these questions gives the African natives the impression that they are badly paid, which is a great disservice to the Africans themselves? Is he also aware that, compared with the job the African does, it is the dearest labour in the world, and that it is impossible for the African to advance his standard of living unless he is prepared to do more work for the money he is receiving?

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the recent refusal of the demand for higher wages by the coalminers of Enugu, Nigeria, was determined by considerations of the effect that such an increase would have on the price of coal.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have already given in reply to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) the information available. According to my present information the disorders at Enugu were not preceded by any negotiation upon, or refusal of, a demand by the union for higher wages. I suggest that it would be very much better to leave it to the Commission of Inquiry to establish the facts of the matter.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would it not be better to leave these matters for the inquiry? If the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to give many more facts there will not be anything left for the commission to determine.

Mr. Awbery: Will not my right hon. Friend hold an inquiry into the conditions of the workers in Nigeria so that we could render some assistance? Is he aware that if he wishes to win the confidence of the workers in Nigeria he should consult the T.U.C. and ask them to send out a commission of inquiry themselves?

Oral Answers to Questions — Commission of Inquiry

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of reference and composition of the Commission of Inquiry into the Enugu dispute.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether representatives of organised labour have been appointed to the Commission of Inquiry into the shooting of miners at Enugu; and if he can announce the composition of the Commission.

Mr. Creech Jones: I informed the House of the composition and terms of reference of the Commission on Monday last.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that no additional person can be appointed to this Inquiry?

Mr. Creech Jones: The Inquiry has been set up, and will start work shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — Disturbances

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether consideration has been given to payment of compensation to the wounded and to the relatives of those killed in the Enugu incident; and on what terms.

Mr. Creech Jones: The matter is one for the Nigerian Government, and one to which I am sure they will give careful consideration. I am asking the Governor to keep me informed.

Mr. Hughes: Are the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry wide enough to include consideration of recommendations on this point?

Mr. Creech Jones: This is a matter for the Nigerian Legislative Council itself.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement about the riots in Nigeria.

Mr. Creech Jones: There is, at present, not much to add to the information I gave the House on Monday. No further disorders have been reported from anywhere in Nigeria. Trade union leaders in Lagos decided a few days ago to cancel a public meeting there in order to avoid the possibility of disturbance. According to latest information from Enugu the "go-slow" at the colliery still continues, and the safety position in the mines is causing anxiety. Discussions are continuing between the authorities and the miners. I am glad to say that the Commission will start its work in Nigeria before the ensuing week-end.

Mr. Gallacher: Is this not a very peculiar riot when nobody was injured by those who were alleged to be rioting?

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the further disturbances at Port Harcourt and elsewhere in Nigeria; whether the police attempted to disperse the rioters by other means, such as the use of tear gas, before opening fire; to what extent these outbreaks were related to the disturbance at Enugu in which 18 miners were killed; and whether the commission of inquiry will be required to investigate the economic causes as well as the immediate circumstances of these incidents.

Mr. Creech Jones: As I explained in my statement on Monday last on the further disturbances at Aba, Port Har-court and Onitsha, the police endeavoured to disperse the crowds by baton charges and the use of tear smoke, before using firearms. The relationship of these disturbances to the events at Enugu is a matter for the Commission of Inquiry, whose terms of reference are wide enough to enable them to inquire into the causes as well as the circumstances of the disorders. I have no doubt they will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — Police (Arms)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all Nigerian police carry firearms; if the possibility of their not normally carrying arms has been considered; and why tear-gas or non-lethal weapons have not been available instead of fire-arms in cases of industrial disturbance.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Nigerian police do not normally carry firearms. They are trained in the use of tear-smoke, and supplies are maintained in Nigeria.

Mr. Sorensen: Why did the police at Enugu use firearms if they do not normally carry them?

Mr. Creech Jones: This is a matter which can be left to the Commission of Inquiry which has been set up to go into the details of the dispute.

Brigadier: Medlicott: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these things happen when there is a Socialist Government in this country, since we have been led, by years of propaganda, to believe that they could only happen under Tory misrule?

Mr. Rankin: In addition to the use of tear gas, has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to the use of the fire brigade, if there is a fire brigade?

Mr. Creech Jones: I can answer that in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps were taken by the Governor to consult representative Chinese, other than those who are members of the Legislative Council,

before formulating his recommendations for constitutional reform in Hong Kong.

Mr. Creech Jones: The draft legislation to implement the "Young Plan" for constitutional reform was published for general information and to enable public opinion in Hong Kong to formulate itself. The Governor's present recommendations have been framed after consideration, inter alia, of views expressed to him by associations and bodies representative of Chinese interests in the Colony, as well as those Chinese who are members of the Legislative Council.

Mr. Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend say why it has taken so incredibly long to reach a decision on this question of constitutional reform, seeing that it is four years since the end of the war with the Japanese and six months since the proposals were made to him?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have already explained that soon after the liberation of Hong Kong this problem received our urgent attention but it was not possible, for a variety of reasons, to make very much progress with the proposals of the Governor and those which were sent back from London.

Mr. Pickthorn: Will the right hon. Friend suggest to his right hon. Friends advising the Crown here, to consult representative Englishmen, other than those who are members of the Cabinet, before assenting to the Parliament Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Police (Arms)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of happenings in Nigeria and other parts of the Colonial Empire, he will consider the advisability of providing the police with tear gas bombs and prohibit them from carrying lethal weapons.

Mr. Creech Jones: Colonial Governments are already in possession of tear smoke equipment and I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 2nd November. The question whether, in addition, the police should have lethal weapons is one which each Colonial Government must determine in the light of conditions in its territory.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend bring his influence to bear on Colonial Governments to avert the use of lethal weapons, especially in view of the fact that incidents have been occurring with somewhat disturbing frequency in other parts of the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Creech Jones: As I have already said, I have addressed a number of circulars to the Colonial Governments on this matter and I am certain that the use of these weapons by the police occurs only in the very last resort.

Trade Union Legislation

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now appoint a commission to review all trade union legislation in Colonial territories and to make recommendations for revision and reform where such appears to be desirable.

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not think that such a general commission would serve a useful purpose. Trade union legislation in the Colonial Territories is continually being reviewed; the general object of policy with regard to such legislation is to provide in each Colony a legislative framework, based on United Kingdom legislation and suited to local conditions, within which a healthy and responsible trade union movement can grow.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the various trade union ordinances in the Colonies are keeping pace with the practice in this country, and would it not be as well to have a complete review of trade union legislation?.

Mr. Creech Jones: The examination of existing legislation shows that in most territories it has been brought into line with the legislation in this country.

Major Lloyd: Is it not of the utmost importance that the Government should recommend in any reforms of this character that the trade unions should not indulge in politics or in political ideologies as they have done here.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (INDIANS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if

he will inquire into the lack of medical supplies and hospital accommodation at Lethem, British Guiana, as a result of which 50 Indians died in a recent outbreak of measles;

(2) how many Indians live on the Government Compound at Lethem in British Guiana; what type of accommodation is provided for them; and whether Europeans have freedom of access to the women's quarters;

(3) whether he is aware that an Indian woman in the Rupununi district of British Guiana was recently stripped and flogged in front of her children and a group of men; and whether he will ensure that the present regulations governing the employment of Indians are strictly applied.

Mr. Creech Jones: I have at present, no information on these subjects, but I have asked the Governor for a report and will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive it.

Mr. Skinnard: In communicating with the Governor, will my right hon. Friend make special inquiries whether there has been any smuggling of spirits across the nearby Brazilian border, to which some troubles are attributed?

Mr. Wyatt: In view of the serious allegations contained in these Questions would my right hon. Friend communicate his answer to the whole House, and not merely to one hon. Member?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Labour Board

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the composition of the Labour Board in British Honduras; and in what way organised workers are represented on the board.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Labour Advisory Board in British Honduras consists of two trade union members, two employers, two officials sitting as independent members and the Attorney-General who is chairman; the Labour Officer is secretary. The two trade union members were nominated by the local trade unions.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is alleged that one


of the trade union members is said to be representing a trade union that does not now exist?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like to look at that.

Cost-of-Living Index

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what basis the cost-of-living index in British Honduras is calculated; and why the cost of clothing is not included.

Mr. Creech Jones: The index is based on normal principles following a survey carried out in British Honduras in 1942 and includes food, rent, clothing, fuel, light and washing, and other expenditure.

Mr. Dumpleton: Will my right hon. Friend look at this to make sure that the cost-of-living index really represents the cost of living, for there is a feeling in the territory that it does not?

Mr. Creech Jones: Clothing was the point mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question, and in any case there is a regular complete revision of the cost of living in order to get a proper index figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Courts Martial Procedure

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Defence when he will implement his pledge that legislation will be introduced during the lifetime of the present Parliament to reform courts martial procedure in the three Services.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the House knows, the Government are unable to take final decisions on the revision of the Services court martial procedure until the report of Mr. Justice Pilcher's Committee on the Naval system has been considered. The Committee have devoted great efforts to this extremely complex subject but their report, though expected shortly, has not yet been presented. In these circumstances, I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.

Mr. Blackburn: Does that answer mean that the Minister of Defence now states to the House that he is not going to implement the pledge he gave to this House? Is he aware of the fact that the Lewis Committee sat for two years and

presented a unanimous report, and that I told the Minister in this House that the Pilcher Committee would not be able to report in time? Will he please go ahead and deal with reforms in the Army and Air Force? Is he aware that his conduct in this matter is so wonderful that not even a Tory Minister under Lord North would have dared to do what he has done?

Mr. Alexander: The Pilcher Committee report must be received first because it was established on the basis of the Lewis Committee, and unless that is done the future position of the Royal Navy is likely to be prejudiced. We will not proceed with the two Services alone without getting the position right for the Navy as well. We have pressed very hard for the work of the Pilcher Committee to be speeded up. I had hoped when I made the pledge early in the year that we should have had the interim report on the main questions by July, when the promise I gave could have easily been implemented. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get that report in time. I am sure the two hon. Members of the House who sit on the Pilcher Committee will support me in that.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House what is so exceptional in naval procedure which makes it impossible for the report to be ready on a matter which has already been investigated in the other two Services? What is it that holds it up?

Mr. Alexander: That has been debated in this House and is not a subject which can be gone into at Question Time.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Maintenance Cost

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what he estimates to be the present cost per day in maintaining our forces in Malaya, Hong Kong and Aqaba, respectively.

Mr. Alexander: It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that informative reply, may I ask him if he could give us some


enlightenment on the aggregate cost as no argument about security could be related to that information? Is he aware that the "Observer" estimates that Malaya costs us £25,000 a day, and does he not think that the House of Commons should have some knowledge of how our money is being spent?

Mr. Alexander: It is not our policy to give figures of the cost in any particular theatre at any time, because it gives information to others which we do not wish them to obtain, and in the public interest, I cannot add anything to my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Parcels from Ireland (Prohibition)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the illegal commercialised import of food parcels from Eire have increased substantially during the last month, and is estimated now to total 15,000 parcels a week; and in these circumstances what does he propose to do in regard to this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, give it at the end of Questions.
Later —

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, His Majesty's Government have become increasingly concerned about this illegal traffic in high priced foods, which, under the pretence of being private gifts is in fact a means whereby wealthier people can acquire rationed goods off the ration and so defeat our basic policy of fair shares. The traffic is now running at a rate of £1½ million a year and, despite publicity given to its illegality and a number of prosecutions, shows every sign of growing to the point where it would seriously undermine our basic policy of fair shares in food. These foods have in some cases been bought with dollars, and contain ingredients in respect of which our own food manufacturers are necessarily strictly rationed. It would, therefore, be unfair to our people generally, and to those who honourably comply with the import regulations, and to British food

manufacturers as well as detrimental to the balance of payments position of the sterling area if we were to allow this importation to continue on what is becoming an appreciable scale.
It has accordingly been decided that as from 1st January, 1950, private imports from the Irish Republic of certain categories of goods which are imported into the Irish Republic or are made there mainly from imported materials will be prohibited, whether labelled as gifts or otherwise. The present list of such goods will consist of canned fruits, dried fruit, table jellies, and chocolate and sugar confectionery. Any package containing such goods arriving in the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic after that date will be seized, and no import licence for them will be issued in any circumstances.

Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answer which she has just given will be of great satisfaction to many people in the British Isles?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Can the right hon. Lady say what significance is to be attached to her use of the phrase "Irish Republic" in her answer, because when a recent Act was before this House and we endeavoured to change "Republic of Ireland" into "Irish Republic" the Amendment was resisted by the Government as being an insult to that country?

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say why we have to wait until 1st January when such a large quantity of goods is expected to be imported in December? Cannot this be started earlier?

Dr. Summerskill: We considered that, of course, and we decided that it would be unfair to deprive those people who were expecting genuine gifts.

Captain Crookshank: Can the right hon. Lady say what proportion the goods which she has specified in her answer bear to the £1,500,000 to which she referred?

Dr. Summerskill: I could not say without notice.

Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is proposed to limit this restriction to food parcels coming from the Irish Republic only and not from other States? There is a certain trade, though a more limited trade, in other parts of the world besides Ireland.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, but I am very glad to say that our Dominions are not abusing the right they have to send gift parcels.

Milk

Mrs. Alice Cullen: asked the Minister of Food in view of the income of old people not being sufficient to enable them to purchase fresh milk at 5d. per pint, if he will consider a scheme whereby a pint of milk could be purchased at 1½ d. per pint as supplied to children at least twice a week

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) on 19th October.

Mrs. Cullen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the milk ration of people, whose entire income is the old age pension supplemented by a grant from the Assistance Board, is a tin of the cheapest brand of condensed milk, and does she not agree that in these winter months a plate of porridge and a drop of fresh milk twice a week would be a Godsend to them?

Dr. Summerskill: We have, naturally, sympathy with the old age pensioners, but I must remind my hon. Friend that there are over seven million old people in this country, and if we gave each one two pints of milk a week at the subsidised rate it would cost us over £11 million a year.

Onions (Imports)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food what imports of onions he expects to receive from Poland before the end of 1949.

Dr. Summerskill: These are private trade imports and I am unable to estimate what quantity will be received during the remainder of this year.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that very little has come in under the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement? Will she give us some indication whether there is to be a flood before the end of the year, and if so, could she say how it will affect the home grower?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman comes from an onion

area, I believe, and will know that the production of onions is very small this year as compared with last year. I am sure that he will also know that the principal source of supply is not Poland but the Netherlands.

Polish Eggs

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Food if he is satisfied that Polish frozen egg is of the same high quality and as satisfactory as Canadian frozen egg previously made available to the trade.

Dr. Summerskill: We have received complaints on some recent shipments which are now being investigated, but over the past two years these eggs have proved satisfactory.

Mr. Drayson: Is there any compensation that can be claimed by bakers who used this frozen egg against which complaints have been made?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The only complaint about this material is that it is less viscous than the Canadian variety. No doubt that is due to the fact that it has been subjected to a pasteurisation process.

Mr. Drayson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that bakers are complaining that this egg deteriorates after it has been in cooked food for three days?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the quality of food does not vary according to the political ideology of the country of origin.

"Food Facts"(Advertisements)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the analysis of the "Food Facts" advertisements prepared by the Horticultural Secretary of the Essex Farmers' Union, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will endeavour to relate the planning and timing of these advertisements more closely to the supply of fresh fruit, vegetables, and fish.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. It should not be assumed that my Department is responsible for advertising fresh fruit, vegetables and fish. When, in the interests of housewives, these commodities are


mentioned in our advertising, planning and timing are as closely related to the supply position as other advertising commitments permit.

Mr. Driberg: Did my right hon. Friend note the point that considerable space was devoted to advertising tinned fish which would obviously keep indefinitely, at a time when there was a glut of fresh produce?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend must realise that while we are anxious to help the producer, our primary duty is to meet the needs of the housewife.

Mr. Churchill: on entering the House, was received with cheers.

Mr. Driberg: While venturing very respectfully to offer congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on his birthday, may I ask my right hon. Friend if the needs of the housewife are not also served by drawing her attention to supplies of fresh fruit and vegetables when they are available?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Sir, and if my hon. Friend examines our advertising, he will see that we try to do that.

Diabetics (Special Chocolate)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Food why there is a shortage of the rationed chocolate specially prepared for diabetics.

Dr. Summerskill: The supply of diabetic chocolate is limited by the availability of Sorbitol which is an essential ingredient. I am afraid there is little prospect of obtaining additional supplies.

Farm Workers' Rations

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him, passed by the Smallburgh Rural District Council in Norfolk, concerning the difficulty experienced by farm workers in obtaining meat and other substantial foodstuffs on the points issued to such workers for reasonal work; and what steps he is taking to remove this and other inequalities which exist between farm workers and those who have access to canteens.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, but I am afraid that it is not practicable to ensure

that particular commodities, of which everybody would like to have more, are available to meet the extra points allowances of agricultural workers. Since domestic and canteen supplies are also scarce, I cannot agree that inequalities for the farm worker are created.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that while farm workers are very patient about this matter they feel they are not getting a square deal? Will she look into the matter again?

Dr. Summerskill: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the farmworker gets additions to his diet which are not enjoyed by other workers.

Mr. Baldwin: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the one thing the farm worker wants is a bit of extra meat, which he is entitled to have just as much as other heavy workers, and miners? In any case ought she not to give the farm worker these rations without requiring applications to go through the hands of the farmers?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Hulk, "Implacable"(Disposal)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the French naval authorities have been given any opportunity of accepting the former French warship "Implacable" in her present situation, and of thus being able to make such arrangements as they might think desirable or appropriate for the final disposal of this vessel.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): As explained to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) on 2nd November, any proposal involving towage of the hulk elsewhere would be impracticable owing to the grave risk of its foundering. The Admiralty have throughout been in contact with the French Naval Attache whose Government is fully conscious of these difficulties.

Brigadier Head: Is not that rather frank answer in direct conflict with the policy of the Minister of Defence in regard to the secrecy of movement of our major naval vessels?

Prize Money (Claims)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why a man of whom full particulars have been sent to him, who served in the Navy as a sick berth petty officer from 1939–1946, spent several years at sea, suffered bombing in Tobruk harbour, and took part in the D-day landings, is considered ineligible for a share of prize money.

Mr. Dugdale.: The applicant to whom my hon. Friend refers based his claim on service in a hospital ship and on 34 days' service in a tank landing ship. In no circumstances could hospital ships have properly taken part in a prize capture and service in these ships is therefore no service at sea within the meaning of that term as defined in the Royal Proclamation of 4th March, 1949. on prize money. The 34 days' service spent by the applicant in a tank landing ship is qualifying service but does not meet the requirement of 180 days' qualifying service.

Mr. Symonds: As prize money is nowadays an extra gratuity for services at sea for a period in a combat area, would it be possible from some other source to make a comparable ex gratia payment to the small number of men involved in circumstances like these, so as to relieve the sense of unfairness?

Mr. Dugdale: It is not an ex gratia payment. It is based on certain principles. There are a number of people, in cases similar to the case raised by my hon. Friend, who have not been able to secure the payment because it did not come within those categories.

Housing (Home Ports)

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty where it is proposed to build, or otherwise to provide, the 3,200 houses proposed to be allocated to the Royal Navy under the Armed Forces (Housing Loan) Bill; and if he will state particularly how many houses are to be provided at each of the home ports.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I am not in a position to inform the hon. and gallant Member in detail where the Admiralty propose to build married quarters in Great Britain. The Admiralty plan is to build married quarters at isolated establishments and

not at present at the home ports. Many decisions remain to be taken before the Admiralty housing programme can be completed, including decisions whether individual establishments under consideration will be permanent. The number of houses referred to by the hon. and gallant Member represents no more than an estimate, and should not be regarded as a statement of firm requirements.

Commander Maitland: Can we take it that it is not Admiralty policy to build any of these houses in home ports? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a very great need for them and that there is a great desire in the Navy to get them?

Mr. Edwards: At the moment it is not Admiralty policy to build them in home ports because we are concentrating on the home air stations in particular. The question of the home ports can be considered at a later date.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these cottages will be tied or not?

STANDING COMMITTEE E (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in regard to an incident which occurred yesterday morning and of which I have given you notice.
Standing Committee E was summoned to consider the Censorship of Plays (Repeal) Bill. We did not have a quorum. Subsequently the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) informed me that as he was making his way along the corridor to the Committee someone had accosted him and endeavoured to dissuade him from attending. I asked who it was. The hon. Member was reluctant to tell me. Eventually, he admitted, in reply to a question of mine, that it had been a Mr. Powell, who is not a Member of this House but is a private individual constantly upon these precincts. The reason I named Mr. Powell was because during the 25 minutes I was in the Committee Room, I had observed Mr. Powell enter some six or seven times and obviously count the number of hon. Members present. The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast then said to me, "Do not bring me into it." I replied.


"This is a serious matter. I cannot make such a promise." I then consulted some of my hon. Friends and some of the senior hon. Members of this House, and they advised me to approach you.
I should like to point out to you, Sir, that Mr. Powell happens to be employed as an agent by, amongst others, a committee of theatrical managers which is opposed to the Bill and had already lobbied all the Members of the Committee urging them to vote against it in Committee. Will you be good enough to rule whether Mr. Powell's action amounts in your judgment to a prima facie breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, if it were a matter of Privilege it should have been raised yesterday, which was the first opportunity. Also, the hon. Member has only secondhand information; this has not been raised by the hon. Member concerned. However, I can tell the House that I am very concerned about this matter. I think that the first step which I ought to take is to refer the matter to the responsible authority for issuing passes to the House, that is to say, the Serjeant at Arms, and to ask him to give me a report, and then, having ascertained the facts, if necessary, the House could act on them and do what it thinks fit.

Mr. Eden: With great respect, I am a little uneasy about your statement, Mr. Speaker, unless I misunderstood it. Do we understand that you rule out any action on this case because it was not brought to your notice for 24 hours, for reasons which seem rather understandable as it did not concern the actual House itself, or is it the case that you are making these inquiries with a possible view of taking action even in respect of this case?

Mr. Speaker: Any report I got would not prejudice any action in the future. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I do not think that the facts of the case raise matters of Privilege. I have been into it most carefully. It may be a matter of discipline for the House, but it is not a matter of Privilege.

Mr. Eden: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a matter of Privilege for anybody who is not an hon. Member of the House to put his head into a Committee Room to count hon. Members of the House sitting there?

Mr. Speaker: I think there have been cases of Privilege ruled the other way, but I would say quite frankly that if I received a proper report, it would not rule out a Committee on this incident.

Professor Savory: May I say that this matter has been brought up entirely contrary to my wishes and without my consent? I was well able to protect myself, as I showed very clearly yesterday.

MR. CHURCHILL (BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, may I offer the congratulations of the House to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition? Although in these days 75 is not a venerable age—people seem to be able to continue for several decades after that—yet 75 does mark a distinct stage in one's life, and I am quite sure that we all rejoice to see the right hon. Gentleman in full health and activity and wish him many more years.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Churchill: I most humbly express my thanks to the Prime Minister for the kindly gesture he has made, which brings home to me, as one of his war-time colleagues, how far more great are all those sentiments which unite us than are the still quite important matters which are so often the occasion of Debate in this House and outdoors.

BILL PRESENTED

INDIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION) BILL

"to make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to India, and persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with India, in view of India's becoming a Republic while remaining a member of the Commonwealth," presented by Mr. Philip Noel-Baker; supported by Mr. Ede and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) (not amended on re-committal to the former Committee), considered.

New Clause. —(CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN PRISONS.)

(1) Except as provided by this section, corporal punishment shall not be inflicted in any prison or institution for which rules may be made under section fifty-three of this Act.
(2) Rules made as aforesaid may authorise the infliction of corporal punishment for mutiny, incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence to an officer of a prison or institution when committed by a male person serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training or preventive detention.
(3) The rules shall not authorise the infliction of corporal punishment except by order of the visiting committee at which not less than three members are present; and no such order shall be made except after an inquiry in which the evidence is given on oath:
Provided that the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct that the functions exercisable as aforesaid by the visiting committee shall be exercised by the sheriff or a stipendiary magistrate appointed in that behalf.
(4) The punishment which may be inflicted under such an order as aforesaid shall not exceed—

(a) in the case of a person appearing to the visiting committee or sheriff or stipendiary magistrate to be not less than twenty-one years of age, eighteen strokes of a cat-o'-nine-tails or birch rod; or
(b) in the case of a person appearing to them or him to be under that age, twelve strokes of a birch rod;

and if corporal punishment is inflicted, no further punishment by way of confinement in cells or restricted diet shall be imposed.

(5) Where an order for the infliction of corporal punishment has been given under this section, a copy of the notes of the evidence given at the inquiry, a copy of the order and a statement of the grounds on which it was made shall be given immediately to the Secretary of State; and the order shall be carried into effect only after confirmation by the Secretary of State, and, if the Secretary of State confirms the order with modifications, in accordance with the order as so modified.
(6) A refusal by the Secretary of State to confirm such an order as aforesaid shall not prejudice any power to impose another punishment for the offence, for which the order was made.—[Colonel Gomme-Duncan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.41 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is moved broadly for the purpose of restoring the system of corporal punishment in Scottish prisons for offences against prison officers. I know that we are much divided over corporal punishment as we are over the question of hanging, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that this corporal punishment is proposed only in cases of assault or violence against prison discipline within prison walls. It is not a question of reinstating corporal punishment for offences outwith a prison.
I know that people have strong feelings on this matter, but I would emphasise, as I have always tried to do on such subjects, that I am anxious to see our prison system and the punishments connected therewith put on a humane basis, and on a basis of reform as well as punishment. On that, I think, we are all to a man or woman agreed. The relationship on this occasion is not to the general public outside but to the prison staff as such. For the purpose of emphasising what I shall say I will, with permission, read extracts from a letter which I have received from the Secretary of the Prison Officers' Association of Scotland who are the people most concerned with this question. It says:
To see a headline such as ' no corporal punishment in Scots jails' makes one wonder upon whose initiation such a step could have been designed. Then you go on to read that the measure to abolish corporal punishment in Scottish prisons has the backing of no less a person than the Secretary of State for Scotland.
My Association opposed very strongly that part of the Scottish Criminal Justice Bill which is designed to remove corporal punishment from Scottish prisons. The fact it is something which is only conferred upon one Scottish prison "—
That is a reference to Peterhead which in itself was washed out when we were discussing the Bill earlier—
and a measure which is seldom resorted to in Scotland is not in keeping with the more general views … and rather than have measures introduced for its removal"—
This is of importance—
my Association would welcome measures which would have the effect of giving wider scope to these powers. In Scottish prisons, as in the English ones, there exists that element of trouble makers who take sheer delight from inflicting grievous bodily injury not only upon their fellows but upon those who have charge of them. Any attempt to enforce even mild discipline is often met with torrents of abuse, and occasionally an unsuspecting officer is attacked in the performance of his duty,


sometimes to his severe injury. Officers going to the assistance of a fellow officer in trouble … are under orders to exercise exceptional restraint "—
We shall all agree with that, of course—
with the result an outrageous prisoner need fear no bodily harm accruing to himself as a result of any completely thought out assault upon an officer or, for that matter, upon any of his fellows. Corporal punishment or the threat of it is the only true answer to a problem of this kind in prison and, as I have already said, rather than have it abolished, the scope for its infliction in Scottish prisons should be widened.
He goes on to say—and I apologise for the length of this quotation, but it is clearly relevant to the case—
At our Annual Conference two months ago the following res00000000olution found the full approval of the members of this Association: 'That in every case where a prison officer is seriously assaulted by a prisoner, the offender shall be flogged.' That resolution will appear as an item on the agenda of the Departmental Whitley Council meeting being held in Edinburgh on the 29th of this month.
That was yesterday, and I have not been able to find out whether that came up or not, but I assume it did.
I have no doubt but that reference will be made on that day to the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Bill as it applies to Scotland, and that much of what we shall have to say will go unheeded. My Executive Committee take very strong exception to the Clause in the Scottish Criminal Justice Bill designed to remove corporal punishment from Scottish prisons completely, and it is on the recommendation of our General Secretary that we make this earnest appeal for your support in not only having this type of punishment retained but of having the power of inflicting it more generally applied to the Scottish prison service.
Neither I nor my hon. Friends propose to suggest for a moment—and this Clause does not suggest it—that there should be any increase but that it should be, as the Clause states, maintained as it used to be.
Having dealt with the attitude of those most concerned with this serious problem, it would be right if I reminded the House of what has already occurred here in connection with this matter when the English Bill was before the House, because it is relevant. Much as we like to have separate Bills for Scottish problems, this is clearly one problem. We are dealing with prison officers and prisoners within the prisons of Great Britain and it is not for either Scotland or England to say which has the greater thugs or which has

the better type of prisoner. Broadly speaking, they are much the same; in fact, they are, as we know from experience, interchangeable on occasions.
The Cadogan Committee went into these questions carefully and, while it was much against corporal punishment outwith prisons, it made this recommendation:
Corporal punishment in prison as a penalty for grave offences against prison discipline is recommended.
The Home Secretary, who I am glad to see present—we appreciate his courtesy in coming here—stated on 27th November, 1947:
We"—
that is, the Government—
share their view.
That is, the view of the Cadogan Committee on this matter of corporal punishment. The Home Secretary was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who led for the Opposition on that occasion, who stated:
I … support the Home Secretary's view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 2147, 2160.]
At that time in the House we had agreement between the leaders at any rate, on both sides, and I think that on both sides probably the majority of their followers would have agreed with them.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Gallacher: I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Member, but I should like him to tell me what principle it is which says that there should be no corporal punishment for a brutal assault outside a prison but that there should be corporal punishment for a less brutal assault inside a prison. Is this corporal punishment to be remedial and, if so, why is it not used outside prisons? If it is not remedial, is it simply revenge?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wished to make it quite clear, and I hoped that I had done so, that I realise that that position applied outside prisons. Indeed, corporal punishment has already been done away with in both countries. I wished, however, to confine my remarks to cases within prisons. The situation is entirely different, because within a prison the prisoner is already under punishment and there is very little else of a serious nature that can be done with him once


he is there. Had he committed an offence outside he would have been popped inside, which in itself is a very serious punishment. The two things, therefore, are not quite on a line.
I should like to quote the Home Secretary again in what I believe to be very earnest and sincere words and given with the whole weight of Government authority. During the Committee stage of the English Criminal Justice Bill the right hon. Gentleman, referring particularly to the question of retaining corporal punishment for serious offences within prison walls, said:
I implore the Committee to live in the world of reality in regard to these matters. Many prisoners—and this is especially true at present"—
that was in 1948, and everybody agrees it is the same now—
are men who easily resort to violence to get their own way. It is essential that the officers in the service should have as much protection as we can give them from assaults of the kind I have indicated.
The right hon. Gentleman had previously quoted some dreadful cases from his own experience. He went on to say:
I am certain that no Home Secretary gets any pleasure out of confirming a sentence of corporal punishment. I have no doubt that my predecessors, like myself, have never confirmed a sentence unless they have been fully convinced either that there was mutiny or incitement to mutiny, or that a gross personal assault had been committed on a prison officer. I say, and I am considering my words well, that at present no Secretary of State could be responsible for the conduct of the prisons of this country if these powers were withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th February, 1948; c. 1233.]
Coming from the Home Secretary, those are very weighty and serious words, which cannot be ignored, particularly as we know the very sincere way in which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to deal with all matters concerning prisons and the reforming of prisoners.
Those words are just as applicable in every respect to Scotland as they are to England, and I cannot see how we can possibly agree any longer to a system which, just south of the Border, allows a man to have corporal punishment inflicted upon him for an offence in prison while just north of the Border nothing of the kind is allowed. From the point of view of prison officers this state of affairs is having a most unfortunate effect.
I say that in all seriousness. Where the Scottish prison officers see their English friends being supported in this matter with all the weight of the Government behind them, they ask, "Why is that same Government not behind us in Scotland for the same purpose?"
It seems to me unanswerable in logic if nothing else, that where one place requires this to be done the other place should have it in, at least, the interests of and fairness to the officers concerned. This is not a matter of protecting the public, but is something quite different. It is a matter of protecting the men who actually have to do the job of looking after these sometimes very dangerous people.
I have made these remarks with all the emphasis at my command, and I hope that the Lord Advocate or whoever replies will, if he is not prepared to accept the precise wording of the Clause, be prepared to consider one which covers this issue, although the words I have used tally very closely with those of the English Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to consider such a Clause, I hope that the House will agree and support him in doing so. If he is not prepared to consider it, I hope he will tell us in the clearest possible terms how the same Government can advocate one thing for the prison officers of one country and an entirely different thing for the same type of officer dealing with the same problem in the country north of the Border. I cannot put the matter more clearly than that, and I have done so with the greatest possible sense of urgency and sincerity.

Lord John Hope: I beg to second the Motion. It has been moved in such admirable terms by my hon. and gallant Friend, that there is little more I can add to his remarks. I hope that the Government will realise that if they reject the Clause they will be doing nothing less than refusing to follow the advice given to them by men who have no axe to grind in this matter, and whose unanimous opinion it is that, in order to do their job efficiently to protect the public, they must be given the powers contemplated in the Clause.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject the Clause. At the end of his speech


the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) employed a somewhat extraordinary argument. He indicated as one of the reasons why the Clause should be incorporated in the Bill that a different procedure is carried out within the prisons of England. It is astonishing that we should have the claim, which was made implicitly if not explicitly, that the law of Scotland should be brought into harmony with the law of England. No other interpretation can be applied to that part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I hoped I was making it clear that I was not referring to the law as such as being the thing which matters in this case, but rather the protection given to prison officers under both sets of laws.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: Which, of course, is part and parcel of the law laid down in this Measure. I submit that if we bring Scottish practice into harmony with that of England on this particular treatment of criminals, there is no reason why we should stop at this one point. If the argument is applied until it reaches its logical conclusion, that is the position in which we are left. It seemed to me that it was an extraordinary argument in view of the statement made on Monday of this week, in which the party opposite, with reference to their programme for Scottish affairs, emphasised that there was a fundamental difference between law and tradition in Scotland and in England. I think that that argument in itself vitiates the whole case which has been put forward.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said that when a criminal is imprisoned and commits any of these offences, there is little else we can do other than flog him. There are a lot of other things we can do. We can take his head off. Why not?

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Let him have the choice.

Mr. Rankin: Once we adopt this line of argument there is no end to it. There are lots of other things that can be done,

such as getting rid of the offender altogether. That is the logical outcome of that attitude.

Lord John Hope: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is less chance of a man getting out of prison if his head is taken off, than there is if he is flogged.

Mr. Rankin: It depends on where he carries his head. There are people who are supposed to carry their heads under their arms and in all sorts of strange positions. The man might take it out with him when he goes. I submit that this attitude lands the hon. and gallant Gentleman in an illogical position, because there are lots of other things that can be done to a person in prison.
My big objection to this Clause is that it destroys the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to adopt a remedial attitude towards the criminal whether he is in prison or out of prison. Are we going to differentiate between the type of offender who is kept out of prison and the type who is put into prison? I submit that the treatment envisaged in the Bill ought to apply not merely to the person who has offended and who is still outside, but also to the person who has earned a prison sentence because of the offence which he has committed. The prison wall ought not to be a barrier to our treatment of the criminal. If this Clause were to go through it would carry on all the bad old practices from which we are seeking to depart. I hope the Clause will be rejected.

Mr. W. J. Brown: This is a very difficult subject to discuss, because I imagine that all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, and to whichever party we belong, do not like the idea of corporal punishment. I like it as little as any man in England, but if we are to be governed solely by our dislike of the idea of corporal punishment we shall reach the wrong decision here today. There are bigger issues involved than our personal likes and dislikes in this matter.
It is only a few months ago since we were discussing here the Criminal Justice Bill for England, in charge of which was the Home Secretary, who I see sitting on the Front Bench. In my view, the Home Secretary is as just and as humane a man as there is in the country. All his instincts are in favour of remedial and not


punitive treatment in prisons. Hon. Members in every quarter of the House would recognise that. But when the right hon. Gentleman had to face the question what should be done to a man in prison who commits a murderous assault upon an officer, then that humane Home Secretary was bound to recognise that that problem could not be answered by a series of easy words.

Mr. Bramall: Would the hon. Gentleman say how it is that there are countries where corporal punishment is not retained as part of prison discipline? How do they manage? They have prisons.

Mr. Brown: I should like to know of a single country in this world where corporal punishment is not retained as part of prison discipline.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Sweden.

Mr. Brown: No, that is not so. Let us get our facts right.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Since we are dealing with a Scottish Bill, perhaps I might remind the hon. Member that apart from one prison in Scotland, namely Peterhead, there has been no corporal punishment in the prisons of Scotland for almost 100 years.

Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) was referring to other countries apart from this country. I know of no country in the world outside the British Isles in which corporal punishment is not retained as part of the prison system. Let us be honest about that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about Sweden?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend believes that Sweden is an exception. I deny that. However, we cannot very well argue that point in cross-talk.
The Lord Advocate said that Scotland has not had corporal punishment in its prisons for the past 100 years, except for one prison, Peterhead. He did not tell the House that Peterhead is the classic convict prison of Scotland. It is the one place, of all places, in Scotland, where the very worst, the most difficult, and dangerous type of prisoner is kept. And

there they have retained corporal punishment. I suggest that we look at this as a practical proposition. I know something about the prison service in England and in Scotland.
I should like to quote one case. I have had in my room a prison officer who was a fine, strong, healthy, vigorous, full-blooded man. He was left in charge of 40 or 50 prisoners making mailbags. A prisoner engaged in that occupation seized the scissors with which the canvas was cut, and drove the end of those scissors into the man's head. As a result, that man, formerly a fine upstanding public servant, is now a moron, an idiot. The Home Secretary knows that case as well as I do, and I see he nods his head.
What are we going to do about that kind of case? Are we going to answer it with fine phrases about remedial treatment, or answer it by reference to what Scotland has or has not done in the last 100 years? That man whom I have described, and his colleagues, are the men upon whom we thrust the burden of looking after the social misfits, the social defectives of our society. Are we going to leave them with no protection? In this House there is more pity for the criminal than there is for the policeman and the warder who have to look after him.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member talks about fine phrases and remedial treatment. Would he analyse it a little? Is he dismissing the whole modern science of psychiatry and psychology? Is he really saying that the man who administered that wound was normal at the time? Has he to be assessed in terms of wickedness, or should he not have had curative treatment before it happened?

Mr. Brown: I take the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. I agree very much with the sentiment which I heard mentioned by an hon. Member above the Gangway. In Glasgow only a few weeks ago I attended the Conference of the Scottish Prison Officers' Association. The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway uttered a sentiment with which I agreed, and which I will repeat—that we have to recognise that there is such a thing as wickedness in the world, and that all of it cannot be excused on the ground of


harsh origins, childhood suffering etc. There is such a thing as evil in the world, and from time to time we as a nation have had to recognise that in international affairs, and have had to stand up to it. We have to recognise it also in internal affairs.
I ask the House to consider the situation. In the prisons today the population is roughly twice what it was in pre-war days. The prisons are badly understaffed; there is not a prison in Scotland except Barlinnie which is not understaffed, and that is a doubtful case; I know the figures. Prisoners are sleeping three in a cell, a thing which never happened in England or Scotland until after the recent war. The rule in pre-war days was one cell, one prisoner; we now have to accommodate three in a cell.

Mr. Carmichael: Will the hon. Member be good enough to name a prison in Scotland where there are three prisoners in one cell?

Mr. Brown: So far as I know that is the case in every prison in Scotland except Barlinnie. The Lord Advocate will answer me if he has better facts than I have. The Home Secretary knows it to be true.
The broad situation in England and Scotland is one of complete understaffing, about which I have made representations to the Home Secretary for years. It is a situation of gross overcrowding, and of greatly increased risks to the prison officers, and from time to time the most appalling cases of assault occur, and there is nothing that can be done that matters short of inflicting corporal punishment. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). who always contributes earnestly to our Debates, tried to kill the argument by driving it to its extreme. He said that there were other things that could be done, that we could cut a man's head off—

Mr. Rankin: That is the logical outcome of the argument.

Mr. Brown: I understood that to be the hon. Member's argument. Is his argument that because we do not want to resort to cutting a man's head off we must abdicate and conclude that there is nothing whatever that can be done? Is that the logic of his argument? If so, it

seems that the argument is a ridiculous one.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankinrose —

Mr. Brown: No, I have given way enough. I do not think I have been unfair to the hon. Member.
I assert that no hon. Member of this House likes the idea of corporal punishment. We should all like a world in which men did the right thing without external compulsion because they were good men. But we have to recognise that we have not got that world, that evil is a fact in the world, and that we have to fight against it. I am charged by the Scottish prison officers, who know their job probably better than we do, to say that they ask of this House the same protection that this House has decided shall be given to English prison officers. Up to now I have never known Scotland content with less protection than England.
I do not understand why this Clause was not in the Bill to begin with. Human nature does not change at the Tweed, and the problem of handling bad men is not dissimilar in principle north of the Border from what it is south of the Border. If this House agrees, as it has done, that in the interests of the prison officer this kind of provision should be made in England, I see no ground in logic or reason why we should withhold a similar provision from Scotland. I hope that the new Clause will be accepted.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: I rise to support the Bill as it stands, and to give my reasons for doing so. One is that, as everyone knows, to outlaw a person means that he cannot have the protection of the law by any means whatever, and that he is fair game for anyone to shoot, stab or kill in any way they desire. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is putting the case that whenever a person goes into prison, he is outlawed; that he is to become an easy prey and to have inflicted on him a punishment which has been abolished in the ordinary courts.
What is the fundamental basis of the law at the moment? The Home Secretary—who nodded approval to the hon. Member for Rugby—himself said, standing at that Box, that we had long


departed from corporal punishment. There is no judge in the land today who can impose corporal punishment for the very offence of which the hon. Member for Rugby complains and in respect of which he claims the right to speak on behalf of prison officers. I will give a case in point. Only last week a young thug sitting in a picture house in Greenock drew out a bicycle chain and hit a girl across the face, marking her for life, because she would not give him a cigarette. But the law of the land has abolished corporal punishment, and all that could be done to him was to put him in prison.
That is the law, based on the principle that we do not recognise corporal punishment. As soon as such a man goes into prison, where he has no bicycle chain, if he raises his fist and hits an officer in the prison he can then be given the flogging which he should have received before he went into prison. Do not make any mistake about my own opinion, which is that corporal punishment should in certain cases be inflicted before the offender goes to prison, not after.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Does not the hon. Member recognise that he is really stating a case for inflicting corporal punishment on the man who slashes a woman with a bicycle chain and not a case against inflicting corporal punishment on a prisoner who jabs a pair of scissors into a warder's head?

Mr. Scollan: I am glad to see that my argument has penetrated. I am stating that the criminal justice Measures in this country—the one which we have passed and the one which is before us—are based on the principle that it is wrong to sentence anyone to corporal punishment for an offence. That is the main point. The whole of our law is based upon the fact that corporal punishment shall not be imposed for any offence in this country.
This new Clause is brought forward with the claim that in special circumstances certain prison officers in charge of desperate men shall receive special protection—mark the word "protection"—against assault. If we admit that, then there is no case for denying the ordinary citizen such protection against criminal assault, if corporal punishment is protection. The whole of our law is based

upon the fact that it does not protect, that all we get out of it is revenge.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brownindicated dissent.

Mr. Scollan: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but is it logical to say that a governor of a prison can impose a sentence of corporal punishment on a prisoner for an assault in prison while a judge trying a case which is a hundred times worse cannot inflict corporal punishment on the person who commits a worse assault outside prison? The whole proposition is illogical. Either we admit corporal punishment into our criminal justice code for everybody, first timers as well as old lags, or we deny it. Up to the moment we have denied it in every prison in Scotland, except at Peterhead. I would remind the hon. Member for Rugby that Peterhead was a penal settlement which, in its early days, had a large number of Englishmen amongst its inmates.

Mr. Brown: We have Scotsmen in English prisons, too.

Mr. Scollan: But they came down to England before they were criminals. The Englishmen came to Scotland after they were criminals. As a matter of fact, I have heard it said that the piers at Peterhead were built by English prisoners.

Mr. Brown: It sounds a typical Scottish transaction.

Mr. Scollan: The point I am making is that it is illogical to bring forward this Clause on a plea that it will give protection to prison officers while at the same time this House has time and again rejected the idea that it will give protection to the ordinary citizen.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the hon. Member agree that the outside person is protected by having the man sent to prison, which is a big thing in itself? But with regard to the inside person, if I may so describe him, there is nothing more that can be done, apart from giving the offender a day or two on bread and water, which he will not mind in the slightest, except to inflict corporal punishment.

Mr. Scollan: Let us follow that up. Suppose a man is doing five years and he attacks a prison officer. The contention


of the hon. and gallant Member is that if the man is flogged, that will prevent that soft of thing and protect the prison officer, but that if he is tried, as if he had committed an assault on a civilian, and given a further five years, that will not protect the prison officer. Obviously, we cannot have it both ways. If it does not protect the prison officer, it will not protect the civilian. If there is a murderous attack upon a civilian, the offender is sent to prison. If a prison officer is attacked, cannot the sentence be continued? Cannot the man be treated in the same fashion? Or are we to say that men serving prison sentences are outlaws and we can flog them or do whatever we like with them? The hon. and gallant Member must think again in this matter.
I am convinced that in a great many cases flogging would save the necessity for prisoners sleeping three in a cell. I think it would reduce the prison population very much. At the same time, so long as the people of this country have accepted as the moral code in our criminal justice Measures that flogging and corporal punishment shall be abolished, I accept that. It is completely illogical to bring forward a new Clause of this character. Obviously, what we should do is amend the whole law so that corporal punishment may be applied, irrespective of whether it is in prison or out of prison.

Mr. McFarlane: I share with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) a complete reluctance to advance any argument which would mean an extension of corporal punishment. I share with the Lord Advocate pride in the fact that we have not had corporal punishment in Scotland for 100 years, other than at Peterhead Prison. But I would ask him if there exist in Scotland any figures or statistics comparable with those presented in the report of the Commissioners of Prisons for England in 1948. There we see that, especially in the local prisons, in contradistinction to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Rugby that it was only in convict settlements that there was this increase in violence—

Mr. W. J. Brown: I did not say that. I distinguished between Peterhead and

other Scottish prisons in the matter of corporal punishment by saying that Peterhead was the classical incarceration point for the convict prisoner in Scotland

Mr. McFarlane: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but I thought he did argue that the existence of the corporal punishment penalty in Peterhead was justified because it was a convict settlement. On the contrary, in local prisons in England there has been a very large increase in offences of violence within the prisons and against the personnel of the prisons. In the convict settlements in England the figures are fairly static, but on the decline. In order to assist hon. Members such as myself to make up their minds in this important matter, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he can tell us what increases there have been in Scotland in the number of offences with violence? Have there been some cases comparable with the cases outlined and detailed in appendix 5 of this report?
I think that hon. Members are in danger of thinking that what is being applied for here in this new Clause is wholesale corporal punishment. On the contrary, it is comparable to the death penalty; it is largely a deterrent. We do know that in England there have only been 12 cases during 1948 where corporal punishment was ordered in English prisons and three of these cases were not confirmed by the Home Secretary. I cannot share the opinion of the hon. Members for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). If they read the brief indictment given in appendix 5 of these particular cases, I think they will agree that there is a large measure of support for that ultimate sanction.

Mr. Rankin: I would warn the hon. Member that he had better be careful in case he destroys the argument put up by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown).

Mr. Scollan: May I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind in regard to the cases he referred to in that appendix, that if they had been committed against civilians, a judge would have been totally unable to inflict corporal punishment. Why?

Mr. McFarlane: The point I was making here as a justification for the possibility of having corporal punishment


as an ultimate sanction of prison discipline, is the protection that the effect of it would afford to the personnel of the prisons themselves.

Mr. Willis: Surely the argument that this offers a deterrent to protect prison officers is rather false, when, in point of fact, these attacks occur in convict prisons in spite of the fact that there is this sanction, and they are increasing?

Mr. McFarlane: That is a factor which had occurred to me, but I am assured by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that the most dangerous elements are incarcerated in convict prisons and we find that there has been a considerable decline in the offences of violence. All I am asking is that the Lord Advocate should give us the facts as they appertain to Scotland. What cases have happened in Scottish prisons? Is it necessary? Does the discipline of Scottish prisons require this ultimate sanction and protection which has been afforded to the prison authorities in England?

Mr. Carmichael: I am very sorry about the discussion we have had today. It would be true to say that this Bill was introduced to improve the conditions of people in prisons, recognising that they are human beings, and that, because of the development of the times, we have found better ways of dealing with them. If we suggest introducing corporal punishment—it is not a case of introducing it at Peterhead—it is the extension of something which, according to the Lord Advocate, departed almost a 100 years ago. I could not understand the logic of the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) that, although we accept the principle of flogging, we should stop it immediately, because Parliament prevents us from doing it in some other place. If the hon. Member could have the law amended so that he could punish people by flogging when they were tried in the courts, then he would have no objection to extending the system to the prisons.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: Obviously the hon. Member could not follow the point. My point was that the law, not relating to prisoners, but to the whole population,

does not recognise the right to inflict corporal punishment. Therefore, the same law should be extended to the man or woman in prison. They should be treated in the same way as the ordinary civilian, or the law should be changed completely to admit of corporal punishment for the civilian on his trial as well as for the prisoner.

Mr. Carmichael: If I stated the argument in different words, it leads exactly to the same point. The hon. Member does not like the idea of flogging in prison because people cannot be flogged before they go to prison. Let us take the illustration of the young man who used the bicycle chain. If the hon. Gentleman had had the power, he would have flogged him.

Mr. Scollan: Exactly.

Mr. Carmichael: That is the point. I aproach the problem from an entirely different angle. I oppose the idea of flogging. One must ask the question, "Have you made any attempt to study the person who commits an offence, and are you quite satisfied that he was in his sound mind when he did it?" The question I put is, "Could I do a thing of that kind?" Frankly, I could not use violence of the kind suggested. I think that that question should be asked on every occasion. Another point is whether we are getting the best type of people in the prison service today. I say that without wishing to be offensive in any way to the people who are prison officers.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The answer is "No." The pay will not allow it.

Mr. Carmichael: Therefore, it may well be that we are bringing people into prison who, on many occasions, may play some part in creating the situation in which a prisoner commits violence.

Lord William Scott: That is a most unworthy suggestion.

Mr. Carmichael: I have been asked to take the view, which I refuse to take, that always when there is a disturbance in a prison the blame rests exclusively on the prisoner. I do not accept that view. I have met people from all walks of life in the House of Commons who, if they had a little power by way of


corporal punishment, would exercise it very rapidly indeed. I do not accept the view that the prisoner is always at fault. The environment of the prison may be irritating and that may cause a lot of trouble.
Mention has been made of three people in one cell. I know of an experiment that is being carried on in Scotland with three people in one cell. They are not there permanently but they meet socially. I do not say that they live in the same cell. That takes place at Perth, where the prisoners meet together for social studies of various kinds. The reason I make that point is that prisoners can meet together not necessarily because of overcrowding or because they wish to prepare some form of challenge to the prison authorities. I am surprised to find respectable people anxious to ensure that when a prisoner, who may not be very sound, commits violence he should be punished in the same way. They say that the man who commits violence is a bad person and should be punished by violence. It is always the case that respectable legislators or administrators want the same type of punishment to be handed out. I should have thought that the lesson to give to the wicked person would be that we do not want to follow in his footsteps.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will give us the facts. I think he will find from the records of any country where corporal punishment has been introduced that there has been an increase in violence. I should like to have statistics on corporal punishment from some parts of America. It would be found that corporal punishment does not prevent violence but increases it. I hope that this Bill, which is a good one, will not be destroyed by the inclusion of this Clause.

Mr. Hale: As a Sassenach, I have never before had the impertinence to intrude in a purely Scottish discussion. I do so today only because we are dealing with an ethical problem transcending national boundaries altogether. I want to put the point of view which I hold. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) put fairly, decently and with restraint, a view which I know many decent people hold. I do not suggest that my ethical conceptions in this matter are

necessarily any more improving than anybody else's, but they are conceptions that I hold, it may be almost fanatically.
I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) that violence begets violence. Corporal punishment is not remedial and never has been remedial. I am very happy to think that there is at least one country in the Commonwealth which has abolished corporal punishment, and abolished it successfully, for many years. Surrounded as I am by Scotsmen, I do not want to be accused of undue adulation, but I should have thought that at least it was fair to say that the average Scot is a man of courage and strength and that temperamentally he is perhaps not unduly yielding. I should have thought that he might conceivably make as tough a prisoner as he does a soldier. If he can be handled, as he has been for 100 years, without corporal punishment, I see no reason why we should not continue without it. There is very much in the Scottish tradition for which I have had a profound respect for many years. For instance, I respect the system of education of which, after all, this is a fundamental part, because this is an ethical conception and it is important.
There was one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby from which I dissent. He said that we must recognise—and I accept this—that there is wickedness in the world and that we must accept the social responsibility for it. That is what we are here for. It is for us, battling with this extraordinarily difficult problem—and it is a fantastically difficult problem—to struggle to evolve some method of dealing with the habitual criminal or the man who, whether it be for physical or mental reasons, is not amenable to ordinary discipline. It is an intensely difficult problem and it is one with which I am afraid we fail completely to grapple.
I should have thought that at least we recognised that the object of putting a man in prison is not to ensure that he keeps on going there for the rest of his life. The object should be the threefold object which Mr. Justice Stephen enumerated a century or so ago—to protect the innocent person, to enforce a system of justice, but at any rate to try to effect some sort of cure to see that it does not happen again. The' whole of


our experience is that violence is never a cure. Indeed, the argument as put by the people who decently hold the view of the hon. Member for Rugby is not that it is going to cure the man who suffers from it, but that it may prevent somebody else from doing it.
I do not often talk in these terms, however profoundly I feel. If one is dealing with a human soul, with a human life to live, one must consider him from that point of view. It is our social duty to try to evolve some method of treatment that preserves his innate dignity and gives him a chance of redemption. I think that the way proposed in this Clause is the wrong way. I feel profoundly that it is the wrong way, and because I feel so profoundly that it is the wrong way I am here today to say that I shall be most happy to vote against this new Clause.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have been wondering why, if this new Clause is regarded as being so important, it has only just appeared on the Order Paper. We spent a considerable time in the Scottish Grand Committee considering these matters, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and Kinross, Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was there for quite a considerable time. Why was not this Clause brought forward then and discussed by the Committee? If it is so important to have this Clause in the Bill, I am surprised to find that the name of the Opposition spokesman who led the Opposition during the consideration of the Bill in the Grand Committee is not associated with the proposal now. I wonder whether that is due to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who is a medical man, takes a rather wider view than do the hon. Gentlemen who put their names to this new Clause?
Before voting on the Clause, I should like the House to examine this matter much more carefully. I was interested in the illustration given by the hon Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) concerning the prisoner who attacked the prison warder. I am sure that we all feel a great deal of sympathy with the warder who is attacked But this new Clause states that the prisoner can be flogged only if he commits certain offences, such as mutiny, incitement to mutiny or gross

personal violence to an officer by a male person serving a sentence.
If we were engaged in making mail bags and this place was a prison, in which the hon. Member for Rugby and I were the convicts—[Interruption.] Well, sometimes this place does seem like a prison. If the hon. Member for Rugby was the convict who stabbed the warder with the scissors, he would be liable to be flogged, but, supposing that he stabbed another prisoner, there is nothing in this new Clause which would enable him to be flogged for it.

Colonel Gomme-Dancan: I shall be perfectly happy to accept an Amendment from the hon. Gentleman to cover the case of the prisoner who has been stabbed.

Mr. Hughes: That shows how little consideration and thought was given by the hon. and gallant Member to this new Clause before putting it on the Order Paper.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the perfectly fair argument which my hon. Friend is putting, but this dilemma occurred when the Criminal Justice Bill for England was being considered. We retained the power of corporal punishment in respect of attacks upon prison officers, but did not retain it in respect of assaults by one prisoner upon another. While we wanted to keep corporal punishment to a minimum, we did recognise the importance of protecting prison officers in their work.

Mr. Hughes: I submit that the case has gone. It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Rugby has come here making a special plea for the prison warder and prison officer. I do not see why he should bring in the Home Secretary and say that he produced these arguments.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): What about visiting magistrates?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: If a prisoner were to attack visiting magistrates with scissors, he would not be liable to be flogged. I am also surprised that the new Clause refers to male prisoners. We have seen from the Press recently that there has been trouble in the female prisons, for instance, at Holloway. If we want to protect a male warder, should we not


also protect a female one, because female prisoners have scissors, too? If the hon. Member for Rugby were as logical as he so frequently claims to be, we should have a Clause advocating the cat-o'-ninetails for female prisoners over 21 and the birch rod for female prisoners under 21. I submit that this is special pleading on behalf of a particular trade union.
This is not the way to approach this Bill. We should not be here as Members of Parliament advocating the point of view of any trade union. I am surprised, if this is the point of view of the Prison Officers' Association in Scotland, that they should have chosen those four hon. Members to be associated with a trade union. We have here four hon. Gentlemen who never had any association with trade unionism at all; in fact, I am quite sure that the noble Lord does not know exactly to what he is committed in advocating the special claims of a trade union and he is in danger of becoming a syndicalist. This proposal is reactionary and completely out of place in our legislation in Scotland, and the more it is examined, the more it will be seen that it is a proposal which ought to be left entirely outside this Bill.

Mr. McGovern: I should like to add to what has already been said by my hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) in regard to corporal punishment. As I see it, even though this proposal is made with a desire to protect the prison warders in the execution of their duty, it is forging a very dangerous weapon to be placed in the hands of the authorities.
The argument is not all in favour of the prison warder. I have had some experience and regret to state that this experience drove me to the conclusion that, in a few cases which were brought to my notice and which I closely investigated, men were set upon by prison warders. These men were without any weapons, but the case went all in favour of the prison warders. There was a case in Glasgow, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, in which a young man was imprisoned and the allegation was that he had thrown a boot at a warder and refused to take his food. Ultimately, four warders took this unarmed man, beat him in a most

horrible fashion and got the prison doctor to certify that he was insane. On the same day, he was packed off to Gartloch Asylum and there certified insane. I saw the man in the asylum, and his body bore the most horrible mass of wounds and bruises that I have ever seen on any human being.
Therefore, I am satisfied that this weapon in the hands of the prison authorities is going to be an encouragement to use violence on the men. I do not say that this will be the case generally, but there will be exceptions in the cases of warders who may be antagonistic in their attitude to an individual, and, because of that, may even go to the length of inflicting violence. I am quite sure, from the history of this matter, that if the prison officers get away with this sectarian attitude which the hon. Member for Rugby is displaying in regard to this question, it will be unfortunate. I know that the hon. Member is a person of fairly humane views, but I think he has fogged his mind about the protection of the prison warders to an extreme degree, and that he does not see that it is a case that not only prison warders but the prisoners themselves should be protected.
I am opposed to this proposal, and during the Committee proceedings upstairs I once stated that almost the first knowledge I had of corporal punishment was received in the Chatham Dockyard Barracks. I once saw a man flogged for stealing from his mates, and as long as I live I shall never forget the scene. We saw him afterwards in the swimming pool, and his body was a horrible mass of weals as a result of the punishment he received when tied to the table in the barrack yard.
I am in favour of the utmost protection for the prison warder and for any person doing a job under the Crown in defence of law and order, but I think it is a most dangerous thing to encourage the idea that such people can, in extreme circumstances, inflict corporal punishment, sometimes simply because of their antagonism towards the prisoner. The prisoner has no opportunity of producing witnesses, and therefore we should be very careful in placing that protection in the hands of the prison warders. I hope that the Lord Advocate will resist any proposal of this kind.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman read the new Clause, because, it does not give power to the prison officer or even to the prison governor to inflict corporal punishment. Subsection (3) reads:
The rules shall not authorise the infliction of corporal punishment except by order of the visiting committee at which not less than three members are present; and no such order shall be made except after an inquiry in which the evidence is given on oath.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are correct.

Mr. McGovern: My answer is twofold. In the first place, I am against the principle of using violence on a prisoner, and, secondly, it is not a question of who is ultimately to decide. It is a question in some cases of the concoction of the evidence which is laid before the visiting committee. A case of violence being used by the prisoner against a warder may be made out when, in fact, the violence is of the most infinitesimal kind.

The Lord Advocate: I think we all appreciate the genuine and sincere motives underlying this new Clause. I think it was prompted by a desire to protect prison officers in the exercise of their administrative duties. I wish to approach the problem from that point of view. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members that if it were a case of the interests and the safety of prison officers being seriously imperilled by the absence of this Clause in the Bill, then it would be in the Bill.
Some play has been made of the fact that a corresponding Section is to be found in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Clause thought it was inevitable that because it was contained in the English code it should likewise have been placed in the Scottish code. He said that it was an exactly similar problem, and that there was no barrier between the two countries as far as this is concerned. I think that is a false approach to the problem because we must distinguish between academic justification for a thing and the practical necessity. There was a time when it was deemed in Scotland to be a practical necessity to hang people for sheep stealing, but in more enlightened times it was decided that such a punishment even as a deterrent was not necessary. It is perfectly true, of course, that

more enlightened movements in Scotland have been followed in England.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Better sign the Covenant.

The Lord: Advocate: It is not necessary to sign a covenant to do good things for Scotland.

Mr. McKinlay: And we do not need Churchill's permission either.

The Lord Advocate: What we have to consider here is whether this is a practical necessity having regard to conditions in Scotland, because we are dealing with Scotland, in circumstances that apply in Scotland. Accordingly, we should turn our minds to the terms of the new Clause to see to what extent it is desired to introduce this corporal punishment in prisons. The Clause proposes that such punishment should be confined to cases involving
mutiny, incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence to an officer of a prison … 
I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and those who spoke in favour of the Clause made a mistake in thinking that if we did not allow corporal punishment in prisons in respect of any such offence there was no method of properly dealing with a prisoner who committed that offence. If that were the case, I would agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends. But it is not the case, because any person in prison who commits an offence—and we are principally concerned with the personal violence offence—is in no different position to a person who commits a similar offence outside. We are only dealing with serious and not trivial offences.
If such an offence took place, the matter would be referred to the Crown Office with a view to proceedings being taken. If those proceedings were taken in the ordinary criminal court, the court would be entitled, having regard to the evidence and if the person concerned were found guilty, to impose a sentence which would be superimposed on the existing sentence. We would treat the prisoner for the offence inside the prison in exactly the same way as we would treat a person guilty of committing such an offence outside the prison.

Lord John Hope: What the Lord Advocate has been saying was surely just


as obvious to the prison officers as it is to him, but they were unanimous in rejecting anything short of flogging as being sufficient. He cannot override them like this.

The Lord Advocate: I am not sure that the prison officers fully appreciated the ramifications of this, but even if they were in favour of corporal punishment, that fact does not bind this House. I am going to deal with the prison officers before I sit down if the noble Lord will try to contain himself a little longer.

Lord John Hope: The Lord Advocate is treating the matter too lightly.

The Lord Advocate: If the noble Lord thinks it is treating the matter too lightly to bring persons who have committed an offence before the responsible criminal courts of our country and allow our courts to deal with them in a normal manner, then I have a different description for it.

Lord John Hope: I was simply attempting to make a relevant interjection because of the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking.

The Lord Advocate: I hope that the House will appreciate that these people can be dealt with and that there is effective machinery for dealing with them, and that that is an answer to an otherwise very legitimate point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Since we have the alternative, we have to consider the question whether it is justifiable not only to retain the corporal punishment which we had in a Scottish prison hitherto, but to extend it to every prison in Scotland, because that is what is involved in this Clause.
My submission is that having regard to the history in Scotland, it is quite unnecessary for the protection of prison officers to introduce the proposal contained in this Clause. This is where the circumstances in England are quite irrelevant, because, as I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it was a much more serious problem in England. That is a deciding factor in determining whether a certain type of punishment should be retained or superseded. Often the very prevalence of an offence may justify the retention of a certain type of

punishment, whereas, if it were becoming much less common, there would be a justification for its removal. That has been the attitude adopted throughout our criminal law.

Lord William Scott: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the English criminal is tougher than the Scottish criminal?

5.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I am merely talking about the facts, and the facts are that the number of assaults on prison warders by prisoners in England is considerably higher than it is in Scotland—

Lord William Scott: In proportion?

The Lord Advocate: Yes. I wish to give the House the figures, because we should have the facts in this matter. We have had corporal punishment only in Peterhead in Scotland during the last 95 years; it did not exist in any other prison. In the last 21 years it has only been resorted to once at Peterhead, in 1934. Only once in 21 years was it necessary to resort to it. As I explained to the House, we have the alternative method of punishment, namely, if a person commits what is a criminal assault in prison he can be charged with that offence in our criminal courts.
I think the House would be enlightened to know what the record has been during the last 10 years. Between 1939 and 1949 there has been one case in court from Peterhead involving assault in which five convicts were charged. That was in 1943. From Edinburgh, there has been one case where prisoners were involved in assault. Three prisoners were involved and that was in 1945. In that case the men were untried prisoners. At Barlinnie there was one case of assault involving two prisoners, in 1948. That is the record. Surely that is not the problem which exercised the mind of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who was dealing, I think, with circumstances in England, more than in Scotland.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I hate to interrupt, because I think the Lord Advocate is making a very fair, relevant and pertinent case. It is true I had the English situation in my mind, but he Will allow me to say that in the last two months I have taken counsel with the prison officers in


Scotland in this matter at a conference at which the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and I were present. They might be right, or wrong, but this is their strong view.

The Lord Advocate: The House might like to weigh the value of that view against the proven facts and circumstances. That background, of only one case in 21 years where corporal punishment was involved in Peterhead and only three cases in Scotland in the last 10 years involving 10 prisoners, of whom only six were convicted, indicates quite clearly that the size of the problem in Scotland is not so great as, apparently, it is in England.
Against that background we have to consider whether or not we should accept this new Clause, which would introduce corporal punishment into every prison in Scotland. In these circumstances, I do not think we would be justified, because I think the modern trend is to get away from corporal punishment, except in circumstances where it is necessary to retain it in the interest of the administration of justice and the safety of those who have to administer justice. I think we would be all at one in regard to that.
Having regard to the facts and as we are living in a world of reality, I think we are perfectly justified in not accepting this new Clause. I assure the hon. and gallant Member and his colleagues that—as no doubt they appreciate—this provision was not left out of the Scottish Bill without a great deal of thought. It was not an omission, but definite and decided policy. The hon. and gallant Member and all other hon. Members would like to think that we approach this matter purely from the point of view of Scottish conditions and Scottish circumstances and, having approached it from that point of view and given the relevant facts to support our attitude, there is not much to be said, except to address my mind to two points.
The first is the attitude of the prison officers, to which, naturally, the hon. Member for Rugby attached some weight. My first comment in regard to the prison officers is that, apparently, they raised this point at a conference two months ago. They directed their representations to my right hon. Friend on Friday of last week, the letter arriving on Saturday.
Their complaint originally was that until the matter was mooted on the Committee stage of this Bill downstairs they did not know anything about it.
This Bill has been right through another place and was very carefully scrutinised in another place. It had a great deal of publicity on Second Reading in the newspapers of Scotland and, if the prison officers were not aware of the fact that this was so until the Committee stage, they were rather late in bringing the matter to the notice of the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities and the hon. Member for Rugby. But, if they were late in bringing it to the notice of those hon. Members, I am afraid they were most late in bringing it to the notice of the Secretary of State, to whom they wrote at the end of last week.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think that the experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the experience of us all is that people outside who are affected by legislation here, have a habit of being very late in stating things they want done. But that they are late makes it no less important.

The Lord Advocate: I can understand individuals not knowing the contents of a Bill, but when there is an association dealing with these matters and a Bill of this nature comes along which is bound to have great repercussions as far as they are concerned, one would expect that notice would be given to the Minister in charge of the Bill earlier than the weekend before the Report stage is taken, when the Bill was initiated in another place and went through all stages in another place.
That is merely a comment in passing and would not affect the validity of their arguments, if their arguments are sound. I am not quite sure why they are supporting this proposed provision, and unanimously supporting it, because hitherto only prison officers in Peterhead have had what they described as the benefit of this protection. I do not know what is the interest of the prison officers in all the other prisons in Scotland, where they have never had it and where, apparently, they got on well without it.
On this aspect of the problem, they might wish to obtain some power such as this in order to make their existence,


perhaps, a little easier if they felt there was an inherent fear in the mind of the prisoner even to go near a prison officer, let alone attack him. There is a natural feeling that they would like that protection. But we have to make up our minds, as we are the jury in this matter, as to whether the punishment sought to be imposed is justified in order to give that added peace of mind and protection.
That is the problem we have to pose to ourselves; is it justified. We have to answer the question in the light of our experience in Scotland and our experience says it is not necessary. These men are doing a good job and we want to pay tribute to them. They are, perhaps, not receiving an added measure of protection and security which, no doubt, they think they require, but which we do not think is desirable, having regard to the punishment which would be inflicted on the prisoner if we accepted it.
I wish to deal with certain points raised by the hon. Member for Rugby in case certain false impressions might go out, unwittingly, from this House in regard to prisons in Scotland. The prison officers may think that prisons are understaffed. I suppose that every employee of an hotel thinks the same, because if they had more the burdens on the staff would be correspondingly lighter. But my information is that, by and large, there is no understaffing in Scottish prisons. That may be a question of opinion. The people doing the work may think they would be better off with someone to help them, but my information, from those administering the prisons in Scotland, is that there is no understaffing, generally speaking, in Scotland.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am sorry that these discrepancies of evidence should arise. At the very last meeting of the prison officers' Whitley Council the question of the staffs in Scotland was discussed and the most that the representative of Scotland would claim was that Barlinnie was not understaffed—it was the only prison in Scotland where they were applying the proper scales.

The Lord Advocate: I get my information from those responsible for running these places. I am afraid that experience in England has led to confusion with regard to cell accommodation so far as

Scotland is concerned. It is quite wrong—and I want to say this emphatically—to suggest that there is anything in the nature of three convicts to a cell in Scotland. There is not. It is one convict to one cell in Scotland. In fact, we have at least one prison where we could give three cells to one prisoner; we could give the prisoner a bedroom, a drawing room and a dining room if he wanted it.
I do not think that the problem of under-staffing exists, but I would urge hon. Members to look at this from the point of view of whether we would be justified in extending this form of punishment in our Scottish prisons—because it is an extension—having regard to our background and having regard to the alternatives which are available for the punishment of those prisoners, inside the prison, who commit offences of this nature. I give the assurance that we who, quite as much as the hon. and gallant Member, are anxious to protect the interests of those who have to administer justice, are satisfied that this Clause is unnecessary.

Lord John Hope: I have listened to the most able arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced with great interest. One has to admit that his figures are extremely impressive. Has he any evidence, however, that there has or has not been any increase in a tendency towards insubordination and general nastiness on the part of prisoners in Scotland in the last year or two, apart from the actual instances of assault?

The Lord Advocate: My information is this: that so far as trivial offences are concerned, which are not covered at all by this Clause, there has been a slight increase, but so far as serious offences are concerned—and they would be covered by this Clause—there has been no appreciable increase at all. I am obliged to the noble Lord for raising that point.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The House is discussing a difficult case this afternoon, and the difficulty is shown by the fact that the lines of demarcation have not followed on a party basis. There have been speakers, notably the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)—who has made a strong case—who are not normally associated with those of us on this side.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Eraser): But he is.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: I am trying to approach this from the point of view from which I am sure the House wishes to approach it—that it is a difficult social problem which we are discussing and that we are laying a task of great responsibility on certain people. I am sure that the House in general has discussed this matter not from a party point of view and I myself would wish to adhere to that.

Mr. Scollan: Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remarks that the matter has been discussed from a nonparty point of view, why does he take definite steps to dissociate his party from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)?

5.15 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) sometimes makes most cogent and important interruptions in our Debates, but sometimes he is responsible for interruptions which make one think that either he has been asleep or that he has been like Baal of the prophets, wandering in some far country. At any rate, that makes it quite clear that the hon. Member for Western Renfrew wishes the matter to be discussed on a purely party basis, which I think would be a great pity.
Because there are two separate problems—the problem as to whether it is, under all circumstances, wrong to have corporal punishment in this country and the question as to whether we should or should not change the law of Scotland. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) was under a misapprehension: corporal punishment has not been abolished in Scotland for 100 years, it has been present in Scotland for 100 years. This Bill is the proposal to abolish it, not the proposal to introduce it. The onus is on those seeking to change the law, and the change is being made by this Bill.

Mr. Hale: If I am under a misapprehension I should like to be corrected. Is it not the position that it has been abolished for civil offences? It certainly has been used at only one prison for the last 95 years for prison offences and it was certainly not usable in other prisons.

The Lord Advocate: I should like to clear up this matter if I may. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) is wrong. We were not referring to punishments in respect of civil offences—those offences outside the prison. The position is that for almost 95 years there has been no corporal punishment in any prison in Scotland apart from Peterhead. So far as the other forms of corporal punishment are concerned, they were abolished by the Criminal Justice Act of 1948.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: I was saying that corporal punishment has been the law in the prison in which the convicts were kept.

The Lord Advocate: No. I am very sorry for interrupting again; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a most unfortunate experience in that he has been interrupted so much and I must apologise to him, but I must point out that convicts were not confined to Peterhead in recent years. Convicts were put into various prisons in Scotland, where they were previously all confined in Peterhead. They were spread amongst various prisons during the last few years.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: I am most anxious not to cast a rather heavy slight upon the men in Peterhead by suggesting that they were the most incorrigible and the most extreme of the prisoners in Scotland. I think that is perhaps unnecessarily adding to the severity of their condemnation. I was understating the case, it is true, but Peterhead was where the convicts were kept for many years and where the most difficult cases—let me put it so—have been kept in recent years. Even so, undoubtedly we have been able, in Scotland, largely to dispense with the infliction of this punishment and that is a very great credit to all those concerned—a great credit to the prison officers, a great credit to the prison governors and, if I may say so, a great credit to the prison population that they have not shown themselves of the violent and intractable kind who would incur these punishments.
We are, therefore, debating a very narrow field. The Lord Advocate gave most interesting and important statistics as to the extreme narrowness of this field. He knows as well as I that it could be argued two ways; it could be argued to


mean that the punishment was unnecessary or it could be argued by the advocates of the punishment that the existence of this power in reserve had, in fact, secured what all people desire—namely, that it was acting as a deterrent and that, consequently, the punishment was not being inflicted.

Mr. Hale: It was not in reserve.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Of course it was in reserve. The hon. Member for Oldham, who has preserved this security for the prison officers of his own land, should think twice before arguing too strongly about our country, where he is seeking to introduce this new proposal, which is not the law of the land in this very city where we are now sitting. This power was in reserve; the Lord Advocate said it was reserve. The Lord Advocate said there had been five people brought up in Peterhead in 1943, three at Peterhead in 1945 and one case at Barlinnie in 1948. These are cases which indicate clearly that powers to consider this matter were in existence. They have been very sparingly used. I therefore say again—and I hope this time that I carry the House with me—that we are arguing a narrow field.

Mr. McKinlay: Did I understand the Lord Advocate correctly? Did he say there were five cases of assault? I do not think he said these were cases of corporal punishment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: He said there was a case of assault involving five men.

Mr. McKinlay: Not corporal punishment.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: He was speaking of a case of assault in which—and I am under the correction of the Lord Advocate—it might have been possible for this penalty to have been used. This was in Peterhead. The Lord Advocate gave us two instances, one involving five men in 1943 and another involving three men in 1945—two instances in which assault took place. In the case of the five men, they were five, I think, who had been convicted, and in the case of the three men they were men who had not then been convicted. I did make a note of the figures, and I think I am correct in saying so. This merely reinforces the argument I am advancing to the House, that we are discussing here a narrow field.
We must then, I think, ask ourselves, Why has this issue come before us on this occasion? It has come before us admittedly on the representations of those who are servants of this House—the prison officers: servants of the Secretary of State, and so of this House. It is also true, as the Lord Advocate has said, that it is only at a very late stage of the progress of this Bill that we have had it brought to the House. However, that is, of course, unfortunately one of the features of our present life. There are so many things passing through that it is very difficult to keep track of them all. Although these representations were made only as late as last Saturday, yet it is the purpose of the successive stages of legislation in Parliament that attention at a late stage can be given to matters brought before the notice of Parliament in connection with the legislation.
Anybody could be confused in his mind about this matter. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has given a good deal of thought and attention to the matter, when the matter was under consideration in Committee, was himself confused in the matter, and if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire did not understand the import of this Bill I think it may be forgiven to certain prison officers that they, too, were confused in the matter. I will read what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said in Grand Committee:
I am not quite sure what the position is in Scottish prisons….
Then he went on to ask:
Does this completely abolish corporal punishment in Scottish prisons? Have the authorities any power to order the infliction of corporal punishment upon prisoners who are guilty of offences against prison officials?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 8th November, 1949; c. 126–7.]
He was answered by the Secretary of State himself, who assured him that the purpose of abolishing corporal punishment was achieved by the Clause we were discussing—it is Clause 53 now—as it stood. I say that if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is clouded in his view of the matter, then, I think, it may well be that prison officers, who have not the same opportunities of acquainting themselves with the progress of legislation in this House, may also have found themselves in some obscurity.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am rather clouded in knowing where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stands in the matter.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Certainly the hon. Member need have no apprehension about that. I propose to make my position absolutely clear.

Mr. Hughes: Then why does not the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appear on the new Clause?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member has no right whatever to catechise me on this or any other subject. I will certainly tell the House of Commons, and I will tell the hon. Member as a Member of the House of Commons. But I will also say it would be a strange House of Commons if Private Members were forbidden to put down new Clauses, or to put their names to them, without always seeking the sanction and approval of Front Benchers on one side or the other; and I think that on many occasions the hon. Member's position in Debate would have been very considerably curtailed if that had been so.
As I say, the prison officers have been late in making these representations. Admittedly so. But they have made these representations, and the argument which weighs very strongly with me is that they are representations from servants of ours, upon whom we have put a most difficult and most onerous duty—this duty of restraint.
Now, it is true that the infliction of corporal punishment—the statutory infliction of corporal punishment—is forbidden in other Scottish prisons. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) brought up a case to which I had to give a great deal of consideration when I was Secretary of State—to which both he and I gave a great deal of attention. It is not always the case that statutory prohibition of corporal punishment means that no violence of any kind is inflicted either by prisoners or by warders in the prisons. I remember well the case which he mentioned. I remember well it was a case of a man who admittedly had assaulted a prison officer; and afterwards prison warders went into his cell, finding the man with a heavy chamber pot in his hand, and starting to embark upon what the warders said was an aggressive attack, and which the hon.

Member for Shettleston said was an unprovoked assault by the warders. However, at any rate, violence resulted undoubtedly.

Mr. McGovern: May I correct the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? I was not in a position to say what happened. I got the story from the prisoner, who was one man against four, and, therefore, I wanted the whole thing investigated from the prisoner's point of view, because he had no witnesses to prove anything, and had used no violence, but had only thrown the pot.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think any of us in this House would care to have a heavy chamber pot thrown at him by a figure as robust and powerful as that of the hon. Member for Shettleston, or indeed, any other Member of this House; or, if that did happen, would not think—very reasonably—that violence had been used. In such a case as that, the provisions of this Clause would come into effect, because this Clause does make very stringent provision as to inquiry, as to the taking of notes of evidence, and as to the submission of those grounds to the Secretary of State. If it had been possible for me to have had such evidence when I was considering the matter I should have been very much happier than I was considering it, as I was afterwards, merely on the statement of the various people concerned.
The hon. Member will remember that this man was, in fact, of unsound mind, because although he was then taken to an asylum and detained but afterwards released, he afterwards, if I remember aright, committed suicide. He was a man the unsoundness of whose mind was proved by his subsequent conduct. However, I only say it was a most difficult and troublesome case, and the fact that it was not a case where statutory provisions operated did not mean it was not a case in which violence occurred. Certainly violence did occur in that case.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arguing that a man in prison who is in such a sick mental condition that, when he comes out of prison, he commits suicide, should suffer corporal punishment?

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: No, certainly not. I am arguing that if such a case were subject to due course of inquiry and


evidence, and came before the Secretary of State himself—and these are the provisions here—the danger of an unauthorised assault and beating up, might be diminished and not increased. That is the whole argument which my hon. and gallant Friend seemed to me to be bringing forward. It is an argument by the prison officers, saying that if this provision is altogether removed we may increase the chances of assault, and, naturally, in such circumstances, we increase the chances of reprisal.

Mr. Gallacher: We are all in favour of an inquiry, not of corporal punishment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The inquiry that is here laid down is an inquiry under which corporal punishment may be inflicted under certain safeguards; and that is the position which has been the case in one of the prisons of Scotland—the prison where those prisoners were for many years—for a great many years.
I come back to the fact that we in this House are now considering a petition from servants of this House, from prison officers; and I think we must give them the utmost possible attention.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: They are not servants of this House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is fond of these fine-drawn quibbles. They are not servants of the House in one sense, but they are in service under the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is responsible to this House, and to that extent, at least, they are servants of this House.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I wonder whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that on that argument every miner and every railway employee is a servant of the House of Commons? Surely we use the term "servant of the House of Commons" in a very special sense, as meaning those whom we in this House directly employ.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman may always use language in that strict and quibbling fashion, but it is not the fashion in which it is used by everyone, and it is certainly not the

fashion in which I, in the full knowledge of this House, am employing it just now.
On these servants of the State has been laid one of the most difficult and onerous of tasks. The task of keeping fellow mortals in restraint is one of the most difficult of tasks; and in some ways one of the most dangerous tasks to a man—I do not mean to his physical strength but to his soul—to put him in a position of authority of that kind over other men.

Mr. Silverman: And the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to increase their authority.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman, who has not listened to this Debate, might excuse us from the running fire of interruption, from which we know he cannot restrain himself when he is taking a prominent part in a Debate. I should have thought that when he was not taking part in the Debate he might have saved us from it.
We are now dealing with the question of whether this Clause should or should not be inserted in the Bill, and whether the principle of corporal punishment after due inquiry should or should not be rubbed out from the law of Scotland. That is really the problem to which we must now address ourselves, and we are asked by those upon whom the duty of administering the prisons falls not to rub it out from the law of Scotland I do not think that we can dismiss that claim altogether. I do not think it is fair on the servants of the State to ignore the representations they have made.
With all the will in the world to admit the strength of the arguments the Lord Advocate has advanced—and they are strong arguments—that this operates only in a small number of cases and over a limited field, I must point out that those upon whom we have put this duty have said that in this small number of cases and over that limited field they consider that these provisions have worked well in the past and should not be expunged from our Statute Book. I do not myself feel able to advise the House to ignore that plea. I now say to the House in general, and to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in particular, that I shall vote for this Clause, and I shall support the plea of the prison officers of my country of Scotland that this particular protection should not be withdrawn from them.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I think that in his last remarks the right hon. and gallant Gentleman misled the House a little. This Clause would not keep the law as it stands today. The law as it stands today limits any possibility of corporal punishment to one prison in Scotland—to Peterhead.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was arguing the matter on the point of principle. If the Secretary of State will undertake even to look into this matter again, I shall be only to willing to counsel my hon. Friends to withdraw this Clause, and myself not to vote for it. If he will give that undertaking, I will do that now.

Mr. Woodburn: The point I was making was this. We are being asked, not to keep the law as it is, but after nearly 100 years to put back a law that has been abolished for all that time in every other prison in Scotland but Peterhead. Charles Reade would turn in his grave if he thought we were going back to his day in our ideas of punishment.
Now, we respect the prison officers, and I know their fears in this regard. I know the fears of those in Borstal when I suggested they should come out of uniform; that they should be the friends of the boys rather than their guardians. They are in my constituency and they saw me personally about that, and I had great difficulty in persuading them that it was a risk they ought to take, because it is prison psychology that if a prisoner fears violence and is restricted and turned into an animal, he behaves like an animal.
The whole purpose of this Bill is to try to alter the atmosphere of prison, not only for the prisoners but for the warders, because as long as there is that former atmosphere between prisoners and warders there is apt to he violence on both sides. The proof of that is that for all that time in Scotland, when there was no violence possible from the point of view of corporal punishment, these offences have not taken place. It would have been possible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have argued that the existence of the possibility of corporal punishment was a deterrent which prevented these offences from taking place, but since that possibility did not exist in any prison except Peterhead it must be proved beyond doubt that that

deterrent has not been necessary in these prisons.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that because of the distribution of types of prisoners, the type that used to go only to Peterhead is now spread more widely, which makes the whole thing different in bringing the other prisons into it. At one time it was confined to Peterhead, but it is not now.

Mr. Woodburn: That argument would have weight had they been confined to Peterhead but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman very well knows Perth Prison, which has been a convict prison for many years, has had not only people of that type but people of mental instability who have had previous records of violence, and even in that prison there has been no case such as would justify our reversing this procedure.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: At that time the Perth Prison for ordinary criminals did not have long-sentence convicts. The criminal lunatic side of the prison is an entirely different thing, to which this Clause would never apply. There is no suggestion of flogging lunatics.

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that even in the ordinary convict prison at Perth, the convicts have been there for long sentences—just as long as those in Peterhead.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No.

Mr. Woodburn: Well, they have been there for quite long terms, and this problem has not arisen. I say it is sufficiently proved that, although that deterrent to violence has been removed violence has not taken place in these other prisons, and no evidence has been produced today to justify the plea that merely by removing it at Peterhead there will suddenly be an outbreak of violence there. We are being asked to reverse an humanitarian advance in our prison system, which has been there for 100 years. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to take us right back to 100 years ago.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That is most unfair.

Mr. Woodburn: The atmosphere in prisons 100 years ago was quite different from the atmosphere today. I want to


make it quite clear that tonight the House is not deciding between the law as it stands, on keeping corporal punishment at Peterhead alone or abolishing it altogether. What we are being asked to decide is whether or not to reverse what has been the position in Scotland for 100 years. I say that public sentiment and public feeling will regard that as a retrograde step. It would convey to the world that something is happening in Scotland which has made it quite a different country; that there is an outbreak of some kind of violence there requiring new and repressive measures. We are trying to get the world away from repressive measures, and that can only be done by trial and experiment.

Colonel Gomme Duncan: Tell that to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Woodburn: We have had the experiment, and the trial in Scotland is sufficient proof that this provision is not necessary in Scotland. We cannot judge for England. Tonight we are judging for Scotland, not England. I therefore beseech the House not to vote for this Clause, which takes us back 100 years and suggests that something has gone wrong with the population in Scotland, both inside and outside the prisons, requiring violent measures. Under the new Clause those who would decide whether violence shall be committed against a prisoner in the form of corporal punishment would be the visiting committee.

Commander Galbraith: The Secretary of State.

Mr. Woodburn: No, the visiting committee first of all.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will see that it is the Secretary of State.

Commander Galbraith: Subsection (6).

Mr. Woodburn: I was coming to that. The point is that the Secretary of State is an executive officer, just as the prison warder is. The Lord Advocate has pointed out that where violence takes place inside a prison, the prisoner is brought before the court, and the court tries him. What is also being advocated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the trial should be by the Secretary

of State, and that he should pass judgment and not the court of law. The Lord Advocate has pointed out that it is much wiser that the matter should be left to the court of law to decide, and that all such cases as are being discussed today should come before the magistrate or the sheriff and be dealt with by him. That is, we believe, the proper way to deal with this matter.
The sheriff has plenty of power to inflict salutary punishment on any prisoner who commits violence. If violence is committed by a convict in prison, it is apt to be reciprocal and cause violence on the part of the warders. If these things are done in hot blood, they are not done judicially, and therefore that is a reason why it should not be left to the prison authorities to deal with these matters and they should be dealt with by someone who is not himself interested in the incident. If the prison authorities judge these matters themselves, they are masters and judges in their own courts. Therefore, we think that these matters ought to come before an impartial tribunal in the form of a magistrate. We know that the people who are administering the prison naturally have the administrative point of view of maintaining discipline, but in a case of violence to such an extent that it requires corporal punishment, we think that such a case should come before the courts.
I ask the House not to accept the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and not to put the law of Scotland back 100 years, but to allow us to be consistent by abolishing the last remnants of corporal punishment which exist in Peterhead. If events prove that we are wrong, we shall have no hesitation in asking the House of Commons for other powers. That would be our duty to the people carrying out our services in the country, and that is a matter which can only arise from experience. The experience so far is on the side of complete abolition, and I ask the House to support us in that view.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman said that in cases of violence the people in the prison would be looked on as the judges and jury in their own cases. Does not that apply to lesser cases in prison, and will he not make arrangements to see that they do not become judge and jury in the lesser cases, and


that the prisoner gets proper representation in those cases as well as in the more serious cases?

Mr. Woodburn: That point does not arise. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have given instructions that the person charged lean call witnesses and is not bound to accept the decision, if he wishes to have other judgment.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that the Mouse will forgive me if I so far break the custom of the House as to intervene in a Debate on a Bill which applies only to Scotland. I understand that the precedent has already been broken by some of my hon. Friends, but there has been no undertaking so far, that any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman will not make speeches about Lancashire unless he has his constituency in that part of the world.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: We welcome any relevant intervention. We have had them already from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). We are most grateful to them.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged. I wish to offer two very short comments. The first is to offer an apology to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for seeming to intervene in his speech at the end of the Debate, most of which I did not hear. I want to assure him that the argument he was then using, as I am sure he appreciates, was not a new argument—the argument that we ought to do this thing not on its merits and not having regard to any of the rest of the discussion, but merely because the prison officials desire it. That argument was used elsewhere on another Bill. I think that it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's main argument. I have never thought it to be a good argument; I think it is a very bad argument indeed.
My only other comment is that I am very surprised to see that there are Scottish Members who wish to reduce the Scottish civilisation to the English level. It is not merely that we would be going back 100 years in the history of Scotland; we would be going back to the present position in England, and I think that would be a very bad thing because the present position in England is very much less civilised than what the Bill

proposes for Scotland, and if I were a Scottish Member I should like to retain my lead over English civilisation as long as possible.
I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that this was a matter for Scotland, and we had no right to consider the affairs of England; but this is the House of Commons. It may be dealing with a Bill which applies only to Scotland, but it is the same House of Commons which considers all these matters, and I think it was a perfectly relevant interruption which was made by an hon. Member opposite, in the speech which we have just heard, when he said "Why do you not tell it to the Home Secretary?" I wish that my right hon. Friend would make the Home Secretary aware of the argument advanced with such force from the Government Front Bench, because it might induce him, even in the short time available to this Parliament, to have a one Clause non-controversial amending Bill to the English Criminal Justice Act—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the new Clause which is before the House. It is a question of whether this new Clause should be added to the Criminal Justice Bill for Scotland, and he cannot suggest anything in the nature of a new Act of Parliament for the whole country.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. A Scottish prisoner can, as a result of this Bill, be transferred to England, and an English prisoner can be transferred to Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. The question is whether this new Clause should be added to the Scottish Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: If a Scottish prisoner is transferred from Scotland to England, although he cannot suffer corporal punishment in Scotland, he can suffer corporal punishment in England, and so it is necessary to apply this to England.

Mr. Silverman: I recognise that it would be quite improper for me to develop an argument about English law on this Motion. I rose to oppose the new Clause, and I was merely saying that the same considerations which induce the House to add this Bill to the Scottish law,


as I hope 'they will, ought to induce the Government to amend the English law accordingly.

Mr. McKinlay: I think that the logic of this new Clause lies on the Government side. I rise for the purpose of suggesting to my right hon. Friend that we should divide on the new Clause. In suggesting that, I wish to say a word in passing to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I ask him, please, never to treat Scotland as a parish, or refer to it as a county-of England.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have never done so.

Mr. McKinlay: My hon. Friend raised the question of exception being taken to Scottish Members talking on a Bill affect-

ing Lancashire. We are a nation, not a parish; and I welcome the observations of those learned in the law, no matter from which part of the United Kingdom they come. It is, however, too much when people try to be funny at the expense of the greatest legal structure in the United Kingdom, which is the law of Scotland, and we are not having any more of it.

Mr. Silverman: So far from being funny at the expense of Scotland, I paid the Scottish people, what I believed to be a very sincere compliment by saying how far they were in advance of English law on the subject matter of this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 100; Noes, 208.

Division No. 295.]
AYES
15.50 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir. A.
Orr-Ewing, l. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Grimston R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir. P. (Moseley)
Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Raikes, H. V.


Baxtar, A. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir. C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bower, N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Jennings, R.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Snadden, W. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Linstead, H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, S. Wingfield
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Teeling, William


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Touche, G. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, 0. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C (Torquay)


Fox, Sir G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Gammans, L. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nutting, Anthony
Sir Arthur Young and


Glyn, Sir. R.
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Sir H.





NOES


Acland, Sir. Richard
Barstow, P. G.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Barton, C.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Albu, A. H.
Battley, J. R.
Burden, T. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Byers, Frank


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Berry, H.
Carmichael, James


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Chamberlain, R. A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Boardman, H.
Champion, A. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, A. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowden, H. W.
Cluse, W. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Cobb, F. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cocks, F. S.


Balfour, A.
Bramall, E. A.
Collindridge, F.




Colman, Miss G. M.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
John, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cullen, Mrs.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Daggar, G.
Kendall, W. D.
Royle, C.


Daines, P.
Kenyon, C.
Sargood, R.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinley, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kirby, B. V.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lang, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lavers, S.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Simmons, C. J.


Diamond, J.
Leonard, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dobbie, W.
'Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Donovan, T.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Logan, D. G.
Snow, J. W.


Dye, S.
McAdam, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAllister, G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Farthing, W. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Fernyhough, E.
McGovern, J.
Stokes, R. R.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mack, J. D.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Follick, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.
Symonds, A. L.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gallacher, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibbins, J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Timmons, J.


Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tolley, L.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Goodrich, H. E.
Mellish, R. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Grey, C. F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mort, D. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Murray, J. D.
West, D. G.


Gunter, R. J.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wilkes, L


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Harrison, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Haworth, J.
Parker J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Holman, P.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willis, E.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.
Wills, Mrs E. A.


Hoy, J.
Peart, T. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hubbard, T.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Woods, G. S.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Popplewell, E.
Wyatt, W.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Young, Sir R. (Newlon)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Price, M. Philips
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Hannan.


Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.



Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.



Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The next Amendment is in page 16, line 1, standing in the name of the Secretary of State.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order. Before Mr. Speaker left the Chamber, I advised him that I wished to ask for his help and guidance in connection with the Amendment standing in my name, in page 14, line 26, to leave out "Borstal," and to insert "normal."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only say to the hon. and gallant Member that Mr. Speaker has not selected his Amendment.

Sir T. Moore: I agree, but Mr. Speaker assented to my request that I should raise

this matter for his or your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Therefore, I am merely carrying out what Mr. Speaker gave me authority to do. I am raising this matter to give the Joint Under-Secretary of State an opportunity to deal with an undertaking given in the Committee stage, and also to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your assistance. The change of the word "Borstal" was discussed for a considerable time in Committee, and the Secretary of State, in response to the general feeling of Members of the Committee, agreed that he would try to find an alternative name before we came to this stage of the Bill. The night before last the right hon. Gentleman's secretary telephoned me to

say that the Minister had thrown his hand in, and could not find a name. I then suggested the name which appears on the Order Paper in my name—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry but no question of Order seems to arise, because the matter is not available for discussion, as Mr. Speaker did not select the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member also appears to be discussing the merits of the matter.

Sir T. Moore: No, Sir, you have misunderstood me. All I wanted was your guidance and assistance and perhaps your concurrence in the right hon. Gentleman making a statement, which would clarify the position, of his intentions in regard to the undertaking which he gave in Committee.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment has not been selected; and in my view no discussion can take place upon it now.

Sir T. Moore: Then will it be all right if I raise the matter on Third Reading?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a question for Mr. Speaker, but, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, on Third Reading it is only permissible to speak about the contents of the Bill as it then appears before the House.

Clause 21.— (CORRECTIVE TRAINING AND PREVENTIVE DETENTION.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 16, line 1, after "released," to insert:
in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
This and following Amendments anticipate the Amendments which are to be moved to Clause 53, in lines 19 and 20. Their purpose is to enable prisoners undergoing corrective training and serving preventive detention, as well as those serving imprisonment and undergoing Borstal training, to be temporarily released in accordance with the rules made by the Secretary of State. They are in accordance with the new developments in our prison system. Where people are sent to corrective detention and show signs of being corrected, they ought to have an opportunity to go back to ordinary life

and see how they fit in with normal society.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 20, after "released," insert:
in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

In line 32, leave out "on licence."

In line 32, after "with," insert:
rules made under subsection (6) of section fifty-three of this Act or.

In line 35, leave out "section fifty-three of this Act," and insert "that section."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Clause 24. —(POWER TO ORDER THE DETENTION OF MENTAL DEFECTIVES.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 42, after "Court," insert "of Justiciary."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Clause 40. —(PROCEEDINGS ON INDICTMENT AGAINST BODIES CORPORATE.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 29, line 20, to leave out subsection (6), and to insert:
(6) Nothing contained in section twenty-eight or twenty-nine of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, shall require a plea tendered by or on behalf of a company to be signed.
The effect of this Amendment is to waive, in a case in which a company is charged on indictment, the requirement that the plea of guilty shall be signed by the accused in court. The Clause as it stood dispensed with the necessity in the event of a company being represented by a solicitor or counsel, but hon. Members will recollect that it is possible, in pleas of guilty, for a representative to appear on behalf of the company, and we therefore thought it right to extend this exclusion or waiver to a representative as well as to counsel or solicitor.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53. —(RULES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS, REMAND CENTRES, DETENTION CENTRES AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 36, line 19, to leave out "on licence."
This and the next Amendment go together, and their purpose is to enable prisoners serving a sentence of corrective


training and preventive detention, as well as those serving sentences of imprisonment and Borstal training, to be released temporarily in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State.

Sir T. Moore: Perhaps this would be a suitable opportunity, Sir, for me to discuss the question of changing the name of Borstal?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think so; this is quite a different point.

Sir T. Moore: Sir T. Moorerose —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have ruled that this is not the appropriate Amendment on which the hon. and gallant Member can raise his point.

Sir T. Moore: Not if I object to the use of the word "Borstal"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. We have not arrived at that Amendment yet. We are on the Amendment to line 19.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 36, line 20, leave out "or detained in a Borstal institution," and insert:
, corrective training, preventive detention, or Borstal training."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Sir T. Moore: The Secretary of State in this Amendment wishes to leave out the words "or detained in a Borstal institution." I am inclined to agree with it in that it removes the word "Borstal" from the Clause. This gives me an opportunity to refer to what was agreed to on all sides during the Committee stage, when it was decided that the word "Borstal" should be excluded from our criminal justice phraseology. As I tried to point out earlier, the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee a definite undertaking that he would find an alternative name to replace the word "Borstal." A day or two ago his secretary telephoned me to say that the Minister had thrown his hand in, that he could not find a suitable name which would not conflict with the English Acts of Parliament. Since when are we being dragged at the heels of England? Have we not made it clear that we are insisting on our own legal code and phraseology, and our own humanity of outlook in these matters of crime?

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Why not use the name "Moorehouse"?

Sir T. Moore: I want the Minister to implement his undertaking, and say that he will find a word—I am willing to supply him with quite a number—which will demonstrate the loathing and abhorrence we all feel for "Borstal," and the sinister significance it has for all those who have endured Borstal training, and its effect on their relatives and friends.

The Lord Advocate: I rise with some hesitation, because in this Amendment we are considering rules, to be made in accordance with the Bill, whereby people should be allowed out of various institutions Accordingly, I do not think that the nomenclature which is being used has any relevance to the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a statement on the question of Borstals, and if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, think it is in Order to reply to it, I should like to take advantage of the situation to give the House the benefit of our thoughts on this. If that is not in Order, I might do it in the course of the Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The word "Borstal" is, of course, mentioned in both the Amendment to leave out and the Amendment to insert. As I understand it, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) objects to the use of the term in this Clause. If the Lord Advocate would word his reply, so as to relate to that point alone and perhaps avoid further discussion, I should be agreeable.

The Lord Advocate: I will confine myself within the rules of Order. I have explained why we wished to extend this right of allowing inmates out for a short period to those who occupy the institutions which we shall, for the present, refer to as Borstals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not say that he would change the name. What he said was:
I give the Committee the promise that I will look into this again, and see whether we can make any change to meet their wishes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 2nd November, 1949; c. 70.]

Sir T. Moore: Yes, but that is a Parliamentary phrase.

The Lord Advocate: That was the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, and we have looked into it very


seriously, having regard to the strong representations which were made by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee. The great difficulty—and it is one which even the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciated—was to get an appropriate alternative. The second difficulty was that even if we were to alter the name in Scotland, it would still have currency, because similar institutions in England are called Borstals. Therefore, we were not getting it out of our lexicon, for it was still remaining there. The third was a purely technical and machinery point. Not only would we have had to make between 70 and 80 alterations in this Bill, but we would have had to make an alteration of the word "Borstal" in many previous Statutes. That is not an insuperable obstacle, but it would be a tedious task.

Mr. Bracken: Why not call them "Mac-Borstals"?

The Lord Advocate: Accordingly, the next thing to consider was whether we could carry on the existing system, without having all those difficulties, by perpetuating the system we are trying to encourage at the present time of having these institutions known by their geographical names. We came to the conclusion that in all probability the best thing was to encourage the use of the geographical names. This is the important part of my argument. I have a feeling that if we use a generic name, whatever attaches to that generic name will in the course of time, attach itself to the institution. If its reputation is bad, it will attach itself to the place, and if the reputation is good, the question does not arise. We feel that we have in the past tried to associate these institutions with the geographical name, as in the case of Castle Huntly and Polmont, with the idea of removing the offensive nature of the reputation which was associated with them.
It was against that background that we examined the various proposals of hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested "Paterson Institution." We felt that, while that was meant as a tribute to the late Alexander Paterson, who made a remarkable contribution to the enlightened methods in use in prisons and Borstals, it was not the best way of commemorating his memory; and in any

event he was associated more with England than with Scotland. The Scottish Committee that considered these matters suggested "Approved Training Institutes." The objection to that designation was that an approved training institute implied an approved centre run by one person and approved by another, which would give the wrong impression with regard to the running. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested "Reformative Institution." That was akin to the old reformatory, which we want to get away from. My hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) suggested "Social Rehabilitation Centre," but we felt that that name did not convey the idea of this particular type of institution. In those circumstances we felt that it had no special relevance to the rehabilitation of adolescents. Someone suggested that we might call them "Latsrob." We think that would be a backward procedure, and we did not adopt it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: What about my suggestion of "Mac-Borstals"?

The Lord Advocate: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would not appeal to the people of Scotland, but we thank him for his help, encouragement and interest.

Mr. McKinlay: Call them "Bracken Institutes." and we can always burn them down.

The Lord Advocate: We had all these difficulties about nomenclature and machinery, and at the end of the day we felt that the best way of getting rid of the association which these institutions previously had was to depend upon the geographical name, which would enable any of the previous stigma to disappear and allow them to take their proper place in our society. We tried to convey that as soon as possible to the hon. and gallant Gentleman; it was because he was not accessible at the time that he did not hear earlier. We have examined this matter carefully, and for the reasons I have described, it was not found possible to accept the various suggestions.

Mr. Hale: I should like to make one short observation, and it is that the Amendment appears to me to represent


a very desirable amendment of the law and one which we ought to welcome. However, there is a consequential amendment in page 44, line 15. I appreciate that because of the rules of Order we cannot discuss that now, but I am entitled to ask the Lord Advocate to tell us now, in regard to the sort of Borstal that is envisaged, what sort of rules it is proposed to make for recalling people who are out on licence, what sort of safeguard is to apply, what sort of notice is to be given, and what sort of protection may be available to the person on licence when recalled?

The Lord Advocate: I can only speak again with permission of the House. What we have in view with regard to temporary releases is that, as a person approaches the end of his sentence, in order that he can be ready to take his place in society, it may be possible to allow him out for a weekend at a time, thus getting him used to the idea of being back in the world. It can also be used for exceptional cases where, for instance, a near relative dies and it is desirable to let the prisoner attend the funeral. Accordingly, he would be let out on certain conditions, which might vary according to individual cases. They would only be short periods at a time and under such conditions as would be prescribed in the particular order.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57. —(RELEASE ON LICENCE OF PERSONS SERVING IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 38, line 11, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 13, and to insert:
compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
The Amendment is consequential. It is intended to repair a minor omission by extending the subsection to enable the Secretary of State to impose a new condition upon a licence holder. A new condition might become necessary because, for example, a person released on licence from life imprisonment might commit a minor offence which did not justify his recall, but which would warrant requiring him to report periodically to the aftercare council or to the police.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66. —(PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 43, line 43, after "warrant," to insert:
in any part of Great Britain.
The purpose of this Amendment is to extend to any part of Great Britain the power of a constable or prison officer to arrest without warrant a person who is unlawfully at large from a place of detention in Scotland. As at present drafted, the Clause confers this power of arrest only in Scotland; but a person may be found unlawfully at large in another part of Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 44, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(3) For the purposes of this section a person who, after being temporarily released in pursuance of rules made under subsection (6) of section fifty-three of this Act, is at large at any time during the period for which he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large if the period for which he was tempararily released has expired or if an order recalling him has been made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the rules.
The Clause, as it stands, empowers a constable or prison officer to arrest without warrant a person who is unlawfully at large from a place of detention in Scotland. The purpose of the amendment is to extend this power to cover the arrest of a person temporarily released from prison or Borstal, if he either fails to return at the due time or is recalled for some reason before his period of temporary release has expired.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 72. —(APPLICATION TO SUPERVISION ORDERS OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROBATION.)

Amendment made: In page 49, line 14, leave out "(2) and (4)," and insert "(3) and (5)."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 75.—(EXPENSES AND GRANTS PAYABLE OUT OF MONEYS PROVIDED BY PARLIAMENT.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 53, line 16, after "Act," to insert:
including any sums so received under arrangements made with respect to the cost of removing and maintaining persons removed from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands to institutions in Scotland under section sixty-two of this Act.


The object of this Amendment is to ensure that any contributions received from the authorities in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands in respect of the removal of detainees from there to Scotland, or of the maintenance of these detainees in Scottish places of detention, will be paid to the Exchequer through the proper channels.

Mr. McKie: I should like to congratulate the Lord Advocate and those associated with him upon this Amendment. It became apparent in the Committee stage that there had been some oversight, so far as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands authorities were concerned, in connection with the Bill. The Secretary of State for Scotland should not shake his head at that, because that was actually the case. There was certainly an oversight because the Committee had to sit again specially to reconsider the position. I did not rise to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but to congratulate him. He ought to be very pleased about that.
There must have been prolonged discussions with the authorities in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I am very pleased with that, because in these days of increasing bureaucratic control it is very important that the undoubted rights and liberties of any Governmental authority, however small, should be protected. We know how very jealously the executive authorities in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands regard their relationships with England, as the mother country, and the maintenance of their ancient rights and privileges. I am glad that as a consequence of the vigilance of the Committee, in respect of the original proposal, we have had conversations with both those authorities about the financial provisions.
Before we let this Clause go, it is only fair to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands that the Lord Advocate should give us some idea of the kind of expenses in which those authorities may be involved. He may not have the figures at his finger tips, but it would benefit the House if a little light could be shed on this subject. The information would be received with very great pleasure in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands by those who have the executive authority to administer those

places. Could the Lord Advocate tell them what their position will be in respect of the contribution which will be levied? It is excellent that these provisions should be in the Bill, and that whether a matter arises within the United Kingdom or in some more distant part of the Commonwealth, the contributions should be paid through the Secretary of State for Scotland into the national exchequer. Perhaps we may be told the kind of sums which may be levied, as it is desirable that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands should know.

The Lord Advocate: Answering the hon. Member by leave of the House, I will give as vague an answer as I possibly can to please him. The answer is that the contributions will obviously depend upon the numbers of people who are transferred, so that I cannot give any figure at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule. —(ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AS TO PROBATION.)

Amendments made: In page 62, line 9, after "committee" insert:

"under the Local Government Act, 1948, or." In line 9, after "Schedule," leave out:

"or under the Local Government Act, 1948."—[Mr. Woodbum.]

Orders of the Day — Sixth Schedule.— (REGISTRATION OF ADDRESS AND REPORTING AT POLICE STATIONS BY DISCHARGED PRISONERS.)

Amendments made: In page 66, line 24, after "be," insert "sufficient."

In line 31, after "be," insert "sufficient."

In line 38, after "be," insert "sufficient."—[Mr. Woodbum.]

Orders of the Day — Tenth Schedule. —(TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 71, line 12, at the end, to insert:
(3) In the case of a person who is deemed by virtue of the last foregoing sub-paragraph to have been released on licence under section fifty-seven of this Act, the Secretary of State may, without recalling him to prison, substitute for the licence granted under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891. a licence under the said section fifty-seven.
This Amendment is required because persons who, at the commencement of the Act, are on licence from penal servitude for life, will hold licences granted under provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts


which are being repealed by this Bill. The effect of the Amendment is to enable a licence, according with the provisions of Clause 57 of the Bill, to be substituted for any such obsolete licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Eleventh Schedule. —(CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 82, line 18, column 2, at the end, to insert:
At the end of section fifty-two there shall be added the following subsection:
'(5) Rules made under this section may provide for the temporary release of persons serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention, or Borstal training.'
In section fifty-seven, in subsection (1), for the words from ' subject to such conditions' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words ' subject to compliance with such conditions, if any, as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.'
In section sixty-one, in subsection (5), for the words from ' The provisions of Part I' to 'that Schedule' there shall be substituted 'The provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act.'
At the end of section sixty-five there shall be added the following subsection:
'(4) For the purposes of this section a person who, after being temporarily released in pursuance of rules made under subsection (5) of section fifty-two of this Act, is at large at any time during the period for which he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large if the period for which he was temporarily released has expired or if an order recalling him has been made by the Prison Commissioners in pursuance of the rules.'
In the Eighth Schedule, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1, there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph:
' (2A) In the case of a person who is deemed by virtue of the last foregoing subparagraph to have been released on licence under section fifty-seven of this Act, the Secretary of State may, without recalling him to prison, substitute for the licence granted under the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, a licence under the said section fifty-seven.'
This Amendment provides for the temporary release of people serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective or preventive training or Borstal training.

Mr. Hale: I was not quite clear about the meaning of the words in this Amendment or what the intention was. I hoped when I read it that it was the inception of a very important social experiment. I am not denigrating the importance of

this provision. I think it is excellent. I can see that it deals with a very important difficulty connected with the emotional circumstances that arise during a man's imprisonment and the real difficulty of releasing a man temporarily because there has been no machinery for getting him back. In that respect, I welcome the reform. A sentence of preventive detention would mean that some sort of procedure might be tried experimentally, in the case of a very long sentence, as is already practicable in the case of sentences for life. The Secretary of State can deal with those matters.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has, normally, periods for a review of these procedures. I was hoping for some experiment in the way of temporary releases in long sentences to see whether reformation had taken place. I am wondering whether that can be put into force. The provisions of the Act of 1948, with regard to preventive detention, have certainly not been carried out by the courts in the spirit in which this House hoped they would be. One has the highest judicial authority for saying that those sentences have actually increased and that they are being applied in cases where it was not intended that they should and where they can prove a very great hardship. This is a serious social problem. The House has never been able to deal with the problem of what is to be done with these men at the time of their release. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that there will be some experiments in the way of the temporary release of good conduct prisoners in order to see if they have made good and can make a return to civilian life.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, I would say that the Amendments with which this Amendment is associated are for that very purpose. There is one difficulty which might arise. If a person were sentenced for life and we released him, he might commit a somewhat minor offence which might not justify his being brought back to prison but might justify the Secretary of State imposing some condition such as that he should be looked after by an aftercare council. These experiments will be of a varied kind, and, naturally, as circumstances make it possible, they will


be developed in various ways. It may be that, as was once the case in Germany, instead of keeping people in prison we might eventually use them for developing the land and for other social purposes. That is already being done in Perth. A number of prisoners go out from Perth every day just as if they were going to normal work. There might be an experimental period during which they might become practically normal persons except that they would have to come back to the prison at night. Men surviving that period might be allowed out altogether and to stay with a farmer, in which case new billeting arrangements would be required. All these things will be tried, and, I hope, many more. If a person is released from sentence for a very serious crime and commits a minor offence, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to vary the conditions without necessarily bringing him back as a punishment, and provision for that is made.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Who actually decides at what stage the misdemeanour is such that a man should be called back, and at what stage would a man be considered not to have gone so far that it was not thought desirable to call him back again? Is that a matter entirely for the Secretary of State, or what sort of datum line will be laid down?

Mr. Woodburn: Clearly the cancellation of a release granted by me would rest with the Secretary of State. He is the person who controls the man's behaviour so far as it is exercised when he is outside prison. However, a man might be brought before a magistrate and convicted of a minor offence, and that would be reported to the Secretary of State by the magistrate or the police, and the Secretary of State would then have to decide whether that offence was sufficient to justify the cancellation of the temporary release and bringing him back again.
There might also be the case of a man sentenced to life imprisonment who was not mentally very stable and yet was not certifiable. It might be possible to release such a man into some sort of custody—that is a risk which a Secretary of State might take—but the Secretary of State has to have power to bring him back if he shows signs of taking to drink or

behaving in a way which is likely to endanger the liberty or lives of other people. Somebody has to judge that, and in the last resort the Secretary of State does so with the advice of the various experts concerned in each case.

Amendment agreed to.

Twelfth Schedule. —(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 86, line 16, column 3, leave out from "(4)," to end of line 18, and insert:

"section eighty-one so far as it relates to sections ten and seventy-one."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendments made: In line 6, leave out "in Scotland."

In line 10, after "institutions," insert "in Scotland."

In line 11, leave out "in Scotland," and insert:
to make certain consequential amendments to the Criminal Justice Act, 1948."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]

6.35 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: It gives me great pleasure to shepherd the Bill on its progress to the Statute Book because I feel that its many ramifications will be of the greatest benefit to us in our criminal administration. The Bill came to us from another place after very careful scrutiny there, but nevertheless in its passage through its stages in this House it has been amended still further, and, I believe, perfected still further.
Most of the Government Amendments which have been introduced in this House fall into two categories, first, the insertion of those provisions which were left out in the other place to avoid questions of privilege, and, secondly, the introduction of provisions dealing with matters furth of Scotland. They deal in the first instance with Scottish probationers who move to England and English probationers who come up to Scotland. They next provide for the removal of prisoners and State mental patients to and from England and enable the Secretary of State to require prisoners discharged in Scotland to report to the police in England if they come to live there.
Further Amendments authorise the trial in Scotland of persons charged with certain indictable offences in foreign countries. The remaining Amendments introduce improvements in detail, for instance, the provision for payment by instalments of fines imposed on indictment. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on whose suggestion that was done.
These Amendments having been included, the five main results of the Bill will be, first, to equip the courts with fuller powers to obtain all the information they need to decide the most appropriate method of treatment for each individual offender; secondly, to remove some of the very obsolete penalties which are still extant in our criminal code, to improve the existing penal methods, such as probation and Borstal, and to introduce new methods of treatment; thirdly, the new provisions modernise the administrative arrangements for dealing with offenders after they have been sentenced; fourthly, the Bill will make suitable provision for the supervision and assistance of offenders after they have been released; and, finally, under the heading of "general purposes of the Bill," the Bill will improve the procedure of the courts in the interests of justice and of expedition.
Some question was raised on the score of expense as to what extent the new proposals would have to be modified or postponed in the light of the economy cuts. As that question was raised at an earlier stage it is right that I should briefly indicate to the House the extent to which the new proposals will be brought into operation and the extent to which they may be postponed. It was contemplated originally that there would be new capital expenditure by the State on buildings and additional annual expenditure by the State and by local authorities in relation to existing organisations. The Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill discloses the intention to have new State remand centres and detention centres, costing approximately £80,000 spread over a term of years, one new prison, costing £100,000, which would not be required for at least five years, and one State mental hospital already contemplated under the Criminal Lunatics (Scotland) Act, 1935. None of

this capital expenditure we hope will be incurred in building new institutions in the course of the next year. In other words, the existing institutions will provide us with sufficient accommodation to cope with our present problems but, as the financial position eases, we shall be able to go on towards the erection of the new institutions.
It was estimated that the new institutions would cost £32,500 to run but, over and above that, we felt that the extension of the existing institutions and organisations would involve us in an annual cost of £16,500 divided between the Exchequer and local authorities to the extent of £10,250 to the Exchequer and £6,250 to local authorities. We propose to go ahead with these schemes because the total of £16,500 is not large and the increases will be incurred gradually as the services are extended and, accordingly, will not be all incurred at one time. For instance, in the next Financial Year the increase on the probation service should be of the order of £5,000 divided equally between the Exchequer and the local authorities. I trust that gives a brief but sufficiently informative picture of the amount of expense that will be incurred immediately as the result of the passing of this Bill.
The only further point to which I shall make reference is that part of the Bill dealing with the administrative arrangement for the trial of prisoners in prison for offences which are dealt with by the prison authorities. At one stage the question was raised about the right of the prisoner to call witnesses on his own behalf for his defence if he were put on a charge to be heard either by the prison governor or by the visiting committee. I am pleased to inform the House that instructions have now gone forward from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the prison governors informing them that every facility must be given to an accused prisoner to call witnesses, and that the right to call witnesses should only be denied if the governor is thoroughly satisfied that there is really no cause for calling those witnesses, and that the request is merely of a delaying or an unjustified nature. The general directive is to the effect that every facility should be given to a prisoner to call fellow prisoners or other witnesses on his own behalf for his defence. That substantially meets one of


the complaints which existed in that connection.
The Bill, which is comprehensive and progressive, should open the way for the judicial and administrative authorities in Scotland, in co-operation with each other, to deal in a more enlightened way with offenders and in a manner more consistent with modern ideas and conceptions. I would take this opportunity, because it will be my last, of thanking hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House, and those who were in Committee, for the careful attention they have given, to the constructive arguments they have advanced, and to the co-operation they have shown in the passage of this Bill. I am sure that their efforts have tended to improve it and, as I said on Second Reading, I have the feeling that it is in these broad matters of human relationship that our Scottish Members particularly shine.

6.44 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: We are now parting with a Bill which at no time has introduced any real controversy on political lines. Apart from the Division which we had earlier this evening, the only Division during the course of this Bill was one in Committee when my hon. and right hon. Friends went to the "aid of the Government against certain of their own Members who were evidently in rebellion against them.
The Lord Advocate has put to us clearly and concisely what this Bill does. There has been little alteration in it. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, it improves the procedure in our courts and is a further departure from punishment towards reform. With that we are all in agreement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say so, but it seems to me that we are here indulging in a great act of faith because the contents of the Bill are, to a large extent, quite against the weight of the evidence. Still, we are determined to take this step and so we can only hope that at the end of the day it will prove to be justified.
I am sure the House was grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he told us in regard to the new expenditure which this Bill incurs, and what will happen as a result of the economies which His Majesty's Govern-

ment now find they have to make. I hope the Lord Advocate was not being over-optimistic. His outlook seemed to be that with the passing of another year, we would be in a position to start on the provision of the new buildings for which the Bill calls.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocateindicated dissent.

Commander Galbraith: If that is not his view, I take his word for it, but that is how it appeared to me. Nevertheless, one hopes the day will not be far distant when that expenditure can be undertaken. In parting with the Bill, we wish it well and we hope that the faith of this House will be justified.

6.47 p.m.

Sir T. Moore: May I first thank the Lord Advocate for his generous acceptance of the help he received from all sections during the Committee stage? Little party controversy has been aroused by this Bill for we all want to achieve one object—namely, preventing crime and trying to reform those who for some reason have already engaged in it.
Two problems arise out of the Bill. The first is how it will be administered from St. Andrew's House, right down through the various channels to the probation officers and all those other officials who will have to interpret the Act of Parliament and translate it into the human achievements that we want to see. The second is to what extent will the recently announced restrictions on capital expenditure affect the implementation of the Bill. Will it defer some of those buildings and centres and hostels on which the success of the Measure partly depends, or has the Secretary of State received any assurances from the Treasury that we shall be able to get ahead immediately? I am sure, the people of Scotland would be deeply interested in what the Secretary of State could tell us on those two points.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that this is a good Bill. It removes certain features from our criminal justice system which are out of touch with modern thought and feeling and, indeed, in some cases are almost inhuman. It abolishes penal servitude and hard labour and, what is far more important, the vicious, abominable ticket-of-leave system which has done more to


break the hopes of men trying to make good than any other part of our traditional system. If for no other reason than that, I believe that the Bill justifies its passage into law. Also we were all happy to know that it enables the juvenile delinquents to be treated in a more sympathetic and helpful way, as well as those whose mental development has been either disturbed or seriously retarded.
I have selected the points which, to me, seem to make the Bill worth while. There are, of course, many other aspects, but those I have mentioned stand out as something which will be to the ultimate benefit of our people, rather than the technical details regarding finance which were given to us so fully by the Lord Advocate. There are also one or two defects which must be put against the many advantages I have attributed to the Bill. All Acts of Parliament have defects, but I am somewhat restricted in referring to them by the fact that we are now on Third Reading and I must keep to the contents of the Bill. It abolishes corporal punishment, to which reference was made earlier this afternoon. It abolishes it for both the thug and the gangster outside prison.

Mr. Willis: It does not.

Sir T. Moore: Can the hon. Member refer me to the Clause—

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Member should know that the abolition of corporal punishment outside prison was effected by Section 2 of the 1948 Criminal Justice Act, which was passed over a year ago.

Sir T. Moore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Time passes so swiftly, events move so rapidly and Government Bills tumble out of the printing presses with such rapidity that it is difficult to keep in touch with all of them.
I do not know whether I would be in Order in expressing the hope that something will be done to deal with the pernicious word "Borstal." I admit that the Lord Advocate dealt fully with this earlier today and gave the considered and well-justified arguments which have guided the Scottish Office. But no matter how eagerly the Scottish Office try to guide public opinion into referring only to the geographical situation of the Borstal Institution, I fear that in the

courts, in public conversation and in the public mind for many years to come and, possibly, always that word "Borstal" will be used, with all the stigma which everyone of us knows it possesses. It is too late now, perhaps, to suggest any way out of that difficulty. I suggest, therefore, that all we can do is to influence the courts, public opinion and private conversation in any way we can so that as far as possible this word is eliminated from the English dictionary. It has become so much associated with ill-doings and misbehaviour that it always dogs the unfortunate individual against whom it has been used, no matter what he or she subsequently does. To my knowledge, it has spoilt many marriages that might otherwise have been successful and happy.
I congratulate the House as well as-responsible Government Departments for the wisdom and humanity which have been shown in the handling of the Bill. I hope that it will be a success and I wish it God-speed.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Before the Bill leaves the House I should like to direct attention particularly to the matter which I raised during the Committee stage in connection with "art and part," on which I hope a very careful watch will be kept. I remember that on one occasion when I mentioned this question, the English legal hon. Members on the other side of the Committee became very interested and wanted to know what it was. It should be noted by all that "art and part" has no limitation of any kind except the discretion of whoever happens for the time toeing to be in charge of legal authority.
In view of all that has been said, both in the Committee and during the discussion today, I hope that the most careful—and, I might say, humanitarian—attitude will be adopted towards punishment within prisons. Since the Committee stage, I have heard that that obnoxious cell to which I have referred is not now, and is not again likely to be, in use. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to assure us that that cell within a cell will never be put in use for prisoners in Saughton and that no similar cell will be built in any other prison.
Then there is the question of temporary releases. I was interested when the hon.


Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) raised this point and asked the Lord Advocate what were its actual implications. The Lord Advocate made the remark that it would be good to see some of these lads getting out for a weekend visit to their homes. When we discussed the Criminal Justice Bill prior to the war, in the days of the present Lord Templewood, I made a proposition that, instead of families having to pay enormous expenses in visiting prisons, prisoners should be allowed out to visit their families. There was an outburst of laughter in the House as though I had suggested something which was far beyond the bounds of reason. But in the present Bill we are approaching a situation of that kind in which temporary releases are possible.
At that time also it was proposed that prisoners should be taken from distant prisons to the prison nearest their home when visiting day came near. An English prisoner, however, could not come up to Scotland. This Bill, however, is reciprocal, and now a Scottish prisoner—a Glasgow lad, for instance—can be brought up from the South of England to Glasgow, instead of his parents having to use all their money in travelling from Glasgow to the South. That will be possible under the Bill if the Secretary of State, together with the Home Secretary, will consider putting into effect the idea which was taken up by Lord Templewood and which would have been passed in the earlier Criminal Justice Bill had it not been withdrawn because of the war. I hope that this proposal will be put into operation as a result of the passing of the Bill.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his successors will be very careful on the question of recalling anyone who has been allowed out on temporary release. A person who has been so released, who might be starting to build up a good and decent life, might fall prey to temptation and make a blunder, although of not too serious a character, and be recalled in consequence. Although the Secretary of State has made it clear that each case will be carefully considered, I hope that the greatest latitude will be shown to anyone on temporary release who has earned a good character whilst in prison and has maintained it since his release. I hope that anyone in this position who yields to

temptation and makes a mistake will not necessarily be rushed back to serve the rest of his time.
There is another point on which I should like to have information. On page 36 of the Bill, Clause 53 (5), dealing with special rules for special types of prisoners, one of which is "(b)", uses the words:
any person serving a sentence on conviction of sedition.
In Scotland sedition has always been classed as a civil offence. I should like either the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate to tell me of any case within the past 25 or 30 years where a prisoner convicted of sedition in Scotland has been treated as a civil prisoner. My experience is that all the people who have been charged and sentenced for sedition have been treated as criminal prisoners, despite the fact that in Scotland sedition has always been a civil offence. In the Bill it is treated as a civil offence, and I should like to know whether in the future prisoners convicted of sedition will be treated as such.
I think the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have handled this Bill in the Committee and Report stages with great credit. They have met many of the questions which have arisen with a certain amount of come-and-go, and if we have not got all that we wanted in the Bill, we have had one or two promises from the Secretary of State as to the sort of treatment which many of us desire to see in the courts and in the prisons. I should like to associate myself with others who have expressed the opinion that the Bill should be helpful, as I believe it will be, and will bring about better conditions in the prisons, as a result of which we shall have better prisoners and thereby build them up as better citizens.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The points which have been raised have been quite interesting, but a good many of them do not call for any reply. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) put some questions as to how the administration would work. That, of course, can only be answered by experience. I should give as my opinion that the administration will develop in humanity as the prisoners themselves develop receptivity. In other words, these two things march


together, and just as we progress in the one field, so we shall undoubtedly progress in the other.
So far as capital expenditure is concerned, my hope is that we shall need very little. This is a case where the Government do not want to spend any money at all. We do not want anybody in prison. We want people to live in their own homes and behave themselves instead of going to prison. They are unwelcome guests. We want as soon as possible to devise ways and means of persuading people to live within the law so that we shall have no responsibility for looking after them at all. This is a form of nationalisation and control that is thrust upon us.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not overlooking the much more difficult case of people of. unsound mind who have to be looked after. I trust the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that he is closing his mind to the necessity of providing accommodation for them?

Mr. Woodburn: They are not in prison. I was talking of prisons. Such people as the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to are in custody and have to be cared for in the same way as people are cared for in hospitals. We would much rather that it was not necessary to have prisons, mental homes and hospitals, but unfortunately they are necessary. The whole purpose of the Bill is to try by persuasion, education and other means to find ways of dealing with prisoners rather than cluttering up our community with prisons and holding people in detention. If any other method is successful, that method will be adopted.
Reference has been made to Borstal institutions. The best thing I can do is to suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, who raised this question, should visit the modern Borstal institutions and see what is being done there. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) referred to the question of allowing prisoners home for weekends. I can claim initiative in this matter, for during the war when I visited Borstals, I suggested that we should experiment by allowing these lads home for the weekend as a reward for good behaviour, and also as a means of showing them that we did not want to break their contact

with life. We felt that if they went back home and saw that their homes were getting on all right, they might return to Borstals with a different feeling, resolve to behave themselves and develop a civic consciousness earlier than they might otherwise do.
The great punishment is to remove people from society. It cuts them off from their social life. That is the punishment of prison. It is a very serious punishment in some cases, because even people who go to prison have families; they have mothers, sisters and sometimes wives and children, and there is nothing that worries them more than not knowing what is happening outside. That often leads to discontent and rebelliousness, attempts to escape and even to violence that might otherwise not take place. This possibility of finding out what is going on at home and satisfying one's mind has the same effect upon a prisoner as it has upon anybody else, so that he decides to undergo his punishment and take his medicine. But if a prisoner feels that his people are being punished, it is much more difficult to control him.
This system is actually being practised. Where it is possible, the boys come out of Borstal altogether, and go to work on farms. I had the case recently of a Borstal boy who was going to be called up to the Army. In the meantime his mother had died and his home had disappeared. He actually asked for permission to stay at Borstal, even though he was at liberty to go away. He wanted to do his work at Borstal until he joined the Army. That ought to convince hon. Members that Borstal has lost its terror. People are beginning to realise that Borstal is an educational establishment and is no longer a form of punishment.

Sir T. Moore: The right hon. Gentleman has fairly precise indications, then, as to the success of these concessions?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, it has made a great difference, and it enables us to divide the boys into categories. Of course, there may be boys who are quite incorrigible and others who are temporarily unable to fit into these conditions. But we regard Borstal as a place where we can get people acclimatised to living in society. In order to do that, we have come to the conclusion that they ought to get some practice. They do not get


practice if they are treated as prisoners and criminals. Therefore, they work in the brickworks and on farms, and at the end of the day they return to Borstal like anybody else returning home. If they respond to that kind of training, they get more and more freedom. They are now allowed to go home at the weekends, or to go to the pictures and do other things in a normal way, as part of the gradual acclimatisation to a better way of life. A boy may finish up in Borstal because he has committed one or two mistakes or because he has been in the wrong environment. In a new environment he may be different.
I have also suggested—and it has been adopted—that softer influences ought to be introduced. There ought to be a club atmosphere, and instead of the boys being locked up in cells at night, they now have training in boxing and physical jerks. In addition, they do handicrafts. They make beautiful things which they can send home. They are beginning to learn how to use their hands and their leisure, which probably in their old environment was quite impossible. I am quite sure that, in spite of the fact that there are dirty old buildings which need to be replaced, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman visits Borstal he will find that the atmosphere inside has completely changed. It will be only a short time before people will learn that Borstal has a different meaning from that which it used to have, and that in spite of the name, the whole atmosphere of the place has changed. We do not propose to use names in that way. Each place will have its own name and will gradually acquire a reputation of its own. I hope that in due course educational retraining will have its effect and will make these places less necessary as a matter of discipline.
The question of recall has been raised. We have to face the fact that people who go to prison have committed an offence, and when they are released it is in the hope that they will not commit further offences. They cannot be released, commit other offences and then expect everyone to say that they should be forgiven time and time again. I can assure the hon. Member that in these matters great and sympathetic consideration is given to environment, and he will notice that the courts are very considerate about

these matters in imposing sentences. A person who has been in prison for a serious crime might, after he has been released, commit a minor offence such as being found drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable. In that case it would be quite wrong to put him back in prison to complete the punishment for the more serious offence, and I have taken power, in an Amendment which has been agreed to today, to enable the Secretary of State to impose new conditions, such as putting such a person under the guidance of the probation officer or after-care council.
I do not know that sedition can be described as a civil offence; it is really an uncivil offence. The purpose of the provision in the Bill to which the hon. Member for West Fife has referred is to enable persons who are in prison for the offences specified in that provision to be allowed certain concessions which would not be allowed to other types of prisoner. The hon. Member can be assured that this provision will be administered satisfactorily.
I repeat that we do not want people in prison. We want to educate them to behave as citizens, and we hope that our community will progressively develop in that direction. We hope that when we build new institutions they will be in line with the whole purpose and feeling of this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that in Scotland sedition is a civil offence?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, all these are civil offences as opposed to military offences, and the Bill relates to civil prisons. Sedition is a civil offence and is described as such in the Bill. Certain exceptions are made which distinguish these offences, and rules may be made by which rather different treatment can be given to those who are convicted of such offences. They are treated under the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Act, 1882, I am informed by the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member is quite correct, it is a civil offence.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Secretary of State instance a case during the past 30 years?

Mr. Woodburn: Sedition is not well-known in Scotland; it is not an offence which is committed very often. I am


sorry to note the hon. Member's undue interest in this matter; I hope that it is not a case of coming events casting their shadows before. In our good democratic country, this is more an academic discussion than one which is of real interest. I hope that we shall send this Bill on its way with the hope that it will help our country's progress, and that prisoners will look upon it as providing a method of helping them to lead a proper life and not one which in any way encourages them to think of prison as a place to which they wish to go.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(THE GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL FOR SCOTLAND.)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 13, line 45, to leave out "and."
During the Committee stage of the Bill there was considerable discussion on the necessity for the inclusion on the Council of a person with financial experience. I considered the point, and the Amendments I am moving are with a view to meeting the wishes of the Committee as expressed during the Committee stage.

Commander Galbraith: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration of the matter and for bringing forward this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 4, at end, insert:

"and
(e) a person or persons with financial experience."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: It is almost unnecessary to say anything at this stage except to mention that on the Committee stage I was asked to give special consideration to the question of "fever nurse" including a nurse with tuberculosis experience. I have been unable to alter the Bill in any way, but I shall take care to ensure that the members do include a person with recent tuberculosis experience. I hope that will meet the wishes of the hon. Member who raised the matter.

7.16 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I wish to refer only to one point which has not been specifically dealt with either today or in Committee. Like the Criminal Justice Bill this Bill will depend largely upon its administration for its success. One of the ways by which our nurses can be made happy and contented and therefore efficient is by the food that they receive. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a matter of grave importance. According to my information, which I have received from nurses who have received their training in the respective hospitals to which I shall refer, the food is disgraceful. That applies to the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, which as we all know is one—

Mr. Woodburn: May I submit that the question of food in hospitals is not a question of the training of nurses which is dealt with in this Bill. If the hon. and gallant Member has any complaints of the kind to which he refers he had better submit them to me for verification and not make a public statement which, in the absence of the necessary verification, might slander someone.

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering very much what this matter had to do with the Bill. I think that it has nothing to do with it.

Sir T. Moore: If I am wrong I will withdraw, but I do not withdraw the allegation because it was made to me by a nurse. I do not intend to pursue the matter as you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it is out of Order. I considered that food was such an essential part of a nurse's happiness and contentment that it


should be regarded as part of her training, but, of course, I accept your Ruling and will not pursue the matter further.
I can only say that I believe that this is a good Bill and is well intended. I hope that it will have all the success which this House desires it to have.

GAS REGULATIONS (STAFF COMPENSATION)

7.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I beg to move,
That the Draft Gas (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.
It was laid upon my right hon. Friend by the Gas Act, 1948, that he should lay before Parliament within six months regulations to deal with staff compensation. These regulations are now here in the prescribed time, and I wish in the shortest space of time, consistent with dealing with them properly, briefly to review them. In the first place the regulations deal with two classes of people. The first group consists of those who were employed by the gas industry and who by reason of nationalisation might lose their employment or suffer some loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights by virtue of the vesting of the industry in the nationalised bodies. The second group of persons covered by the regulations consists of gas examiners and inspectors of meters and their assistants.
It will be within the recollection of the House that the Gas Act provided that as from vesting day inspectors of meters and gas examiners should be transferred to the staff of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and it laid upon the Minister the responsibility of carrying out duties which before had been carried out by persons appointed by local authorities and by the Justices. It is very right, therefore, that those persons, if they suffer loss, should receive compensation, and for that reason the regulations cover all these classes of persons. In so far as the payment is concerned, then, of course, those who will come on to the Minister's staff

or who will not come on to his staff by reason of vesting, but who become redundant—gas examiners and inspectors of meters—will be compensated out of public funds. Those who are to receive compensation because of loss of employment and who were previously employed by an undertaking will receive their compensation from funds provided by the nationalised industry itself.
By and large, the regulations are very similar to and follow quite closely the electricity regulations which were debated in this House at fairly good length on 9th March this year. There is, however, a difference in the regulations—in fact, there are one or two differences, which I will come to later—but I ought to say right away that whilst we have followed the electricity provisions fairly closely there is a new provision, which is that the element of expectation has been introduced. The introduction of the element of expectation as a factor to be taken into account when assessing compensation is based, of course, on the important differences between the gas industry and the industries for which regulations have already been made. By and large in the other industries that have been nationalised, there was in operation either by statute or by similar method a code which covered redundancy when amalgamations took place. Typical of those, as hon. Members will immediately recall, are the Railways Act of 1921, the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933. and the Electricity Supply Acts of 1919 and 1926. Because a code had been laid down, that code could be the basis when dealing with the regulations in these industries, but no such general code existed in the gas industry. Therefore we have looked at what the gas industry did in the normal way when an amalgamation took place.
There is, of course, some history in relation to this. When the House of Lords were examining special orders relating to amalgamations, they insisted upon some specific provisions 'being made, and so, in one form or another, there has been some sort of code laid down, although not, of course, a general code. The Joint Industrial Council for the gas industry had a code, but it only related to manual workers, and there were varying provisions for people outside the Act or the order, such as office staffs, engineers, managers, and so


on. Therefore, as I say, we have looked at what the history of the gas industry has been and tried to interpret it and put it into these regulations by means of this provision in respect to expectation. It really means that the expectation of all workers in the industry is not exactly the same as it is in the industries where codes of general application were already in existence. At all events, we have had regard to the likelihood of compensation being paid for loss of employment or earnings in the event of a gas undertaking, by which a man was employed before the vesting date, amalgamating with another gas undertaking.
Regard for whatever was done in those circumstances has been incorporated in these regulations by provision for expectation. There would, of course, be cases where, in point of fact, no amalgamation had taken place, but, nevertheless, in those circumstances we have, as it were, looked at what the industry as a whole would do. When making their claims for compensation in this respect, claimants will be able to look at what happened when amalgamations actually took place between undertakings. Where they are not able to do that, they will be able to look at what happened generally in the industry and base their case upon that. Therefore, I think that in this matter we have been reasonably generous—and it is quite right that we should be—and, in point of fact, I anticipate that the great majority of workers in the industry will be able to prove expectation.
I do not know whether the House wants me to go into great detail about the amount of benefits provided for persons unable to prove any previous expectation of compensation whatsoever, because they are not excluded from all compensation. Provision has been made for such persons if they have lost their employment to receive a minimum compensation at the rate of two-thirds of the difference between their net emoluments lost and any unemployment or sickness benefit they may receive. This benefit is given for 13 weeks except for those persons who are over the age of 45 when an additional week is added for each year of service that they have had in the industry after attaining the age of 45

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: They would have an additional 13 weeks, would they not?

Mr. Robens: Yes, the maximum allowed in the regulations being, of course, 26 weeks. There are 13 weeks with the possibility of another 13 weeks provided such persons have got in the necessary service after reaching the age of 45. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for making the point. The regulation, therefore, falls into the general pattern common to all the precedents and divides the compensation into three stages—immediate compensation to which I have just (referred, substantive compensation which is assessed by reference to a number of factors, and is set out very clearly, I think, in Part II, Section 6, of the regulations, and then, stage three, residual compensation, details of which are in Section 9, and are, in fact, similar to the electricity regulations. These regulations embody a number of basic provisions which have been included in all previous cases. We discussed these at very great length on the electricity regulations, and therefore I will not repeat the arguments for them, although it would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I were to say what they are.
First, the qualifying period of not less than eight years continuous service after the age of 18 years and immediately preceding vesting day. Secondly, there is no entitlement arising on the ground of anything occurring more than 10 years after the vesting date. Thirdly, claims must be made within two years of the loss. Fourthly, protection is offered for employees who were on war service on vesting day. Fifthly, the maximum compensation is limited to two-thirds of the emoluments lost. Sixthly, the emoluments in excess of £4,000 per annum are to be disregarded. Seventhly, substantive compensation is subject to review, but the period in which a review may take place is limited in cases of loss of employment to two years from the date of the first assessment or, if there was an appeal from that assessment, from the date of the award. Then there is a right of appeal to referees appointed by the Minister of Labour and, lastly, the extent to which compensation may be commuted is strictly limited.
All these are identical with the previous regulations that we have had in respect of nationalised industries. They are matters of Government policy. We have


argued them before in this House, and I do not propose to argue them again. I should like to turn to some of the differences between these regulations and the Electricity regulations. Hon. Members may want to raise some of the points I have referred to and no doubt my right hon. Friend will reply, but I suggest that we had a very serious discussion on all these points when we discussed the Electricity regulations in March. On that occasion, the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crostbwaite-Eyre) propounded a theory that there might be some difficulty with those persons who were employed by local authorities in various capacities—not only with the gas undertaking—and that there might be an occasion when a man became redundant and lost his employment but, because he transferred from one department of the corporation to another, he would not get compensation.
We have considered a number of matters raised in the previous Debate and we have gone out of our way, as it is right that we should, to see whether we could adjust the position in these regulations. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a decision has been reached and that these regulations cover that point in that an employee of a local authority will have the whole of his time of employment with that authority taken into consideration when dealing with matters of compensation if he should lose his employment or suffer some loss of emoluments because of the nationalisation of the industry.
We have also made a provision that the periods of whole-time training which are preceded and followed by service in the industry can now count as qualifying and reckonable service. That covers the case of the young man entering the industry, working for some time and then going to a university or technical college full-time to better equip himself for the use of the industry, and then returning to the industry. The whole of that time will be taken into consideration and will be regarded as qualifying for compensation if necessary.
I remember very well the discussions on payments other than the direct salary or fee that a man might receive—fees, commissions, bonuses and so on. The

case was made that in point of fact we should not average those payments over the long period that we did. It may have been a Committee point on the Gas Act that I am thinking about, but I know that it was discussed. In these regulations we state that the payments will be averaged over the three years immediately preceding the date of loss, or an even shorter period where that is appropriate. I think that that meets the point that was raised.
In addition, any payments calculated as a percentage of salary or wages will be averaged by taking the average of the percentages instead of the amounts. Both of these concessions were made at the request of the staff unions and they will benefit many workers in view of the tendency in recent years for emoluments to rise. We have also reduced the limit on small claims from 5 per cent. to 2½ per cent. of the annual emoluments. We have placed an obligation on the compensating authority to give a claimant all the information about his previous service that he might require when preparing a claim. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a most useful addition to the regulations.
As in the electricity regulations, the compensating authorities are required to make a first assessment of substantive or residual compensation within three months from the date of the claim. We have inserted a further provision to prevent the recovery of overpayments in the event of the first assessment being too high, and to ensure that a firm figure is arrived at within six months of the date of the claim. The regulations also confer a right to allow claims to be presented orally at the option of the claimant. Claimants are also given the right to be accompanied by their advisers when summoned for interview by the compensating authority.
All these matters are exceptional in that they are not included in the Electricity Regulations. They arise because of discussions both in this House and with the interested parties, and it is an indication of the way in which my right hon. Friend tries, as far as he is able, to meet with generosity all the cases that are put to him. The regulations have been framed to alleviate hardship without discouraging the personal incentive to seek other employment, since we regard


it as absolutely essential to the policy of full employment that workers displaced from one industry should take all the necessary steps to obtain employment in another.
Therefore, these regulations have been weighted in favour of the older men who will find more difficulty in obtaining other employment than younger men. I think that these regulations will commend themselves to the House and I should like to conclude by reading a comment from the "Gas Journal" of 9th November, 1949. In its editorial it says:
The draft regulations are a masterpiece of Parliamentary draughtsmanship and phraseology—necessarily so because of the complicated nature of the circumstances involved and the genuine desire on the part of those who are now responsible for the conduct of the industry to give a square deal to those whose status has been rendered less favourable through no fault of their own.

7.38 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I want to start by discharging what to me is a rather unusual task—and it is all the more pleasant because of that—of saying "Thank you" to the Parliamentary Secretary for the improvements which he has mentioned in his speech. I should like particularly to thank him for the local authority concessions upon which, in the Debate on the Electricity Regulation I put more weight than on anything else that I mentioned. But I am afraid that after that very brief honeymoon, I must spend the rest of my time in criticising the regulations.
The chief criticism is that the Government have now introduced this phrase, "person with an expectation." I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary skated rather quickly over what he thought it meant. I shall come back to that point later. I thought that he misled the House, no doubt accidentally, in the main reason which he put forward to justify this phrase.
As I understood it, his case was that in the industries for which similar regulations had had to be made previously there was a code, and that code was naturally the background against which the regulations were formed. But in the gas industry, there being no code like that in the electricity industry, we have in the regulations to make out such a code. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that if he were to ask anybody in

the electricity industry whether they preferred the code of that industry or his regulations, he would be told that they preferred their code, and similarly if he asked anybody in that industry whether his regulations carried out that code, he would receive the most emphatic negative.
We have fought the nationalisation of this industry, but at the same time, now that the decision has been taken, I think every hon. Member wants to see the industry prosper. We do not want to see yet another industry pile up a series of debts. But if the industry is to prosper and to work satisfactorily, there is one important thing which the Ministry have to do in the first few years, and that is to see that the people who are engaged in that industry have confidence in it and in their own future under the new employers they now have. It can be reduced to those simple terms, and everything else depends upon it; it is the basic requirement.
The Government have quite rightly set themselves a standard which, no matter what might have been the standards of private enterprise in the past, they will try to maintain—the standard of model employers—and it is by that criterion that we have to look at these regulations tonight. I think our real objection to these regulations is that the compensation offered is not up to that standard, either in the amount or under the liberal interpretation of compensation payable to individuals either by private enterprise or by the State under previous Acts of Parliament. These Acts of Parliament dealing with this question have covered all types of industry, from coroners and mid-wives to persons who work for the London Passenger Transport Board.
What is the real definition of compensation? Compensation is not something that a Minister provides out of his generosity or some sum which he disburses and to receive which the recipient should automatically be grateful. Compensation is not an arbitrary thing; it must be full and complete if we are to live up to the standard which the workers have always had in the past. Equally, if the compensation is to be fair in amount, it must be free from questions of class or rank or political prejudice, and everyone, whether it be a man earning £5,000 or £6,000 a year as a director or one earning 30s. a week as a part-time


employee, must be included and equally safeguarded. Unless the Minister does that without fear or favour, he cannot say that he has produced a proper scheme of compensation.
Nor, in estimating compensation, has the Minister any right to break away from what has been done in the past and try to take into account outside facts. I must stress this point again, because I think it is most important for us to bear it in mind. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it does not really matter too much because we have full employment, and therefore whatever hardship there might be would be only transient and temporary, because anybody could get another job, and we did not need to worry excessively. That was the attitude which the hon. Gentleman adopted in the case of the Electricity Regulations. It may be true today that we have full employment, and we are very glad to see it, but hon. Members know very well that, if it had not been for Marshall Aid, we should now have had 1,500,000 unemployed, and we still do not know how long that aid is to go on.
These regulations have to stand for 10 years, as the Parliamentary Secretary said. How does anybody know whether we shall still have full employment for 10 years? No one can guarantee it, on that side of the House or on this. The hon. Gentleman also knows that, under the cuts announced by the Government, the amount of capital to be spent in the gas industry is to be cut down, and that, again, may delay his plans and may cause redundancy. I think it would be very rash for anyone tonight to assume that we need not look at these regulations too carefully because of full employment.
Let us take another instance. In the Debate in the House on 9th March on the Draft Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations, the hon. Gentleman said:
… it is Government policy to ensure that any person displaced by reason of vesting should be found some alternative employment.
I would like to ask—and I hope I may have an answer tonight—in how many cases people who were redundant under the electricity scheme have been found alternative occupations by the Government. It would be very interesting to

have that information, and I hope the Minister can give the answer.

Mr. Robens: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, would it be of value to him and to the House if I tell him now that my information is that there have been only five cases for compensation as the result of the nationalisation of the electricity industry?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That was not my point, but I should like to say how glad I am to hear that information. Then, the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
So far as diminution of emoluments is concerned, a very large proportion of the staff is covered by the normal trade union and association agreements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1296–7.]
Later, in replying to the Debate, the Minister himself said that certain people were covered by their contracts, and the regulations dealt only with the people who had not contracts. I think that strengthens our case, because the Minister says he has got to acknowledge a contract in full, and it therefore seems to me to be logical that those people who have not got contracts should not receive less favourable terms.
I think the most dangerous appeal of all made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that, in viewing this compensation, we must not penalise the consumer and place a heavy burden upon him. The Government have decided to buy this industry for the consumers, and I am quite certain of one thing—that the consumer does not want them to break with what has been done in the past, and for the first time, in order to save a few thousands of pounds, to cheesepare and not give a fair and square deal to those who have worked for many years in this industry.
These regulations lay down three principles. The first one is the person "with' an expectation," meaning a person who has a reasonable expectation—
in the event of an amalgamation before the vesting date of the gas undertaking in connection with which he was employed last before that date with another such undertaking … 
and so on. The second is the qualifying period of eight years, while the third is that a man cannot get more than two-thirds of the loss sustained, with certain


additions for length of service and other such things.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain more fully just what this first qualification means—"a person with an expectation." I must admit that the more I read it the more difficult I find it to understand what it really means. As I view it at the moment, it must mean that no one can have an expectation, and therefore qualify, unless he can prove that had there been an amalgamation between his company and another such company, he might have expected to incur a loss; in other words, that he would have been the inefficient man when put into a comparison between him and his opposite number in the other company, and probably in consequence would have been declared redundant. He would have to prove that, as the result of a hypothetical amalgamation, he would probably have lost his job, before he can get compensation. I think that is the only interpretation which can be put upon it.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That would not have been lost.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I go on to that? It is the next step. That seems a fair thing, and I thought so, too. But already in the gas industry just the reverse has happened. I propose to quote a case, without mentioning the name of the particular man in public, although if the Minister wishes to have any further information, I am prepared to give it to him afterwards. It is the case of a very senior man who is a chief engineer, who has worked for 37 years and who would normally have had no expectation of losing his job. He has worked his way up to a very responsible position, but he has been dismissed by a gas board. So far as he and I can judge, there is no way in which he can entitle himself to compensation, because before vesting date he had no expectation of losing his position in the event of amalgamation.
For the first time a premium is set upon the fact that under amalgamation a man can be drafted from one employer to another. That is a thing we have never tolerated in the past. There was the very well known case in 1940 of Noakes versus the Doncaster Collieries, of which I would remind the Minister. It went to the House of Lords, and there it was laid down quite clearly

that a free citizen in the exercise of his freedom is entitled to choose the employer he promises to serve. So the right to his services cannot be transferred from one employer to another without his assent.
This particular regulation seems to be a complete negation of that.
There is the second qualification of eight years. I think I am right in saying that, in regard to all those thirty Acts which have been passed covering compensation to employees, there is no previous example of a qualifying period. That is something which has been produced by this Government, and I think it contravenes the elementary principles of compensation.

Mr. McAdam: The hon. and gallant Member says there has been no previous qualifying period. Is he aware that in the Railways Act, 1821, a qualifying period of six years before the passing of the Act was laid down?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should be very glad to accept that. My information was that there was no previous example, and I do not think that the one case which the hon. Member has mentioned destroys the point I was endeavouring to make. I wish to ask the Minister what is the justification for this qualifying period? If a man is sacked through amalgamation, whether he has been in the industry one day or 30 years, he has still lost his job and he is still entitled to compensation. It does not seem to me that there is the slightest ground in justice for having a qualifying period, although again I must thank the Parliamentary Secretary that he has made several valuable concessions on this question of what was to count as a qualifying period. At the same time the whole regulation, even as it is now drafted, is full of absurdities and contradictions.
Why should a man, just because he is under 26 years of age, be excluded altogether from compensation? He may have taken on a great many responsibilities because he thought he would be able to work permanently in the industry. He may have bought a house, with invested savings or something of that kind because he thought he had a permanent job, but, just because of an arbitary age limit, he cannot get any compensation at all. Think of a man who went straight from school into the Forces. He gets no compensation. On the other hand, if his next-


door neighbour spent one day in the gas industry, and was then called up, he could count the whole of his war-time service. It would appear that the man who is patriotic gets nothing, but the man who delayed going into the Services can get full compensation; I am certain that is something which the Minister does not want to happen, but that is the effect of these regulations.
The same thing applies to the young man who went to a technical school or a university for three years at the request of a firm. He is nominally on the pay roll of that firm and he probably went on a highly skilled course to fit him for a job on the managerial side or the chemistry side, or any other technical department of the industry. But, because he could not put in 30 hours a week during that period when he was nominally on the pay roll, he will not get any compensation either. I will give one further example. Take the case of the specialist, a man who has spent 30 years in the industry, and who has been lent by his company to go to start a gas works, say, in one of the Dominions. He is lent for six months and the other company pays his salary for that period while he gets the new works started. He never had any intention of leaving the original firm, but because that six months fell in the eight years preceding the vesting date, he will get no compensation. Quite obviously the Minister never meant that particular case to fall within the ambit of his regulations.
I think we are all agreed that two-thirds has been the standard in practically every Act and certainly in the ones I have mentioned tonight. But Regulation 8, in the way in which it is set out, seems the whole time to be trying to nibble bits away from the compensation. It is completely at variance with, and different from, what happened, say, under the Local Government Act, 1933. If we examine the Schedule to that Act, we see that it was designed to make a most generous interpretation and allow a man to add to his compensation. In all the other Acts there has been a special provision made for added years. Where a man had special qualifications or had done more than five years' service, he was allowed added years. Why cannot we have those little things in these regula-

tions? They cannot amount to much, but they would make all the difference to a man who is receiving compensation and leaving the industry. He would go out happy and feeling that he had had a generous deal.
There is also the question of the £4,000 limit. I have never quite understood why the Government have insisted upon this limit. They have said that any emolument over £4,000 should be disregarded. The Government are not adverse to paying people more than £4,000. This morning I looked up the answer to a Question, which was given by the Prime Minister on 15th December, 1948, when he gave a list of all the people appointed to the nationalised industries. There are 61 of them who are receiving £4,000 a year or more. I do not think, therefore, that any hon. Member opposite can say that there is any objection by the Government to paying people more than £4,000. Why, then, is there this cutting down? As I said earlier, a man, be he earning 30s. or £5,000 a year, is entitled to just the same treatment by every principle of logic and justice. I can see no reason at all for this. I am afraid it is just a piece of political prejudice. I hope I am wrong, but I cannot see any other reason. I ask the Minister whether in future, on questions of compensation, every earning above £4,000 is to be disregarded. Do all the contracts that he, as Minister, has made with various members of boards have a provision that when they come to retire, or may have to be compensated, anything they are earning over £4,000 a year is to be disregarded? I shall be very interested to hear his answer.
It is essential that this industry should get away to a good start. That will not be done if we have people who leave the industry through redundancy going about as ambassadors of ill-will. Nor will there be a happy industry if the people who suffer a loss of emoluments but who stay on, instead of working with zeal, feel disappointed and slightly embittered.
It is our first task, if we are to make any of these nationalised industries work, to see that in them there is no just cause for complaint. In these regulations I think there are many causes for complaint, and I hope the Minister will withdraw them and live much nearer to the standard he rightly set himself of being


the best employer in the country. If he does that, I think that in the gas industry he may have success, but if he does not, I am certain it will become another on the lengthy list of nationalised industries which have failed.

Mr. Keenan: Does the hon. and gallant Member infer that the compensation suggested in the regulations is inadequate and that it does not compare favourably with that of employers who were in the industry before nationalisation? Will he tell the House how much compensation the Liverpool Gas Company gave to hundreds of its employees when they were dismissed prior to nationalisation because of nationalisation, although many had given 20 to 30 years' service?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Obviously, the hon. Member knows as well as I do that I could not on the spur of the moment give those details.

Mr. Keenan: Those men got none.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But I was not talking of private enterprise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members will allow me to finish, I confined myself almost entirely to referring to what had been done in 30 Acts of Parliament and I kept off private enterprise because I did not wish to start a party point on this issue.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Burden: Like the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) I wish to thank the Minister for points included in the new regulations, but I am bound to say, and I say it with all respect, that the somewhat laboured explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the new principle embodied in these new regulations—expectation of compensation—failed to carry conviction in my mind. He was not able to disguise the fact that it is a very serious departure from the code of compensation which has been previously accepted by this House in regard to all the industries and other services brought under national ownership and control.
Not only is it at variance with that, but I am bound to call the attention of the House to the fact that it is at variance with repeated declarations which have

been made by Ministers in regard to this problem. Take, for example, the declaration of the Minister of National Insurance as far back as 14th April, 1916. He stated:
The position of the Government, which is fairly clearly defined on this question, is that when the State by its own action transfers functions from one body to another, the State accepts liability for absorption or compensation. It is a principle which has governed Governments in the past in approaching questions of a transfer of statutory functions.
I will read a quotation from the Minister of Fuel and Power himself on this question. That was when the House were discussing the draft electricity staff compensation regulations. This is what the right hon. Gentleman then said:
We must approach these problems from a common basis. There are certain provisions in the transport and electricity regulations. Later on we shall have to introduce similar regulations for the gas industry. I do not say that every single sentence of the regulations should be the same; there might be good reasons for differences in drafting, as there are; but on the essential points of principle it would be difficult for the Government to have different principles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1346–47.]
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say when in any of the previous regulations or at any time this new principle of expectation of compensation has been embodied. I put it to him that in these regulations he is introducing a new aspect which previously has not been accepted by this House in any of the other regulations. It is a principle which, I am bound to tell the House, is most strongly objected to—

Mr. Edward Porter: By whom? Which organisations? Name them.

Mr. Burden: I will name one, the organisation which has the overwhelming majority of the men in its ranks, 180,000 in its ranks, the National Association of Local Government Officers.

Mr. Porter: It is not speaking for all of them.

Mr. Burden: It may not be speaking for all of them. We should be happy in this House if we could speak for all our constituents, but we can speak for the majority and in this I claim the organisation is able to speak for the majority of these people.

Mr. Porter: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, but I know the Minister has had, by deputation and in other ways, the strongest possible representation by this organisation in regard to the principle to which exception is taken.
The second point is that there is a common opinion abroad that members of the local government service are entitled, with regards to the circumstances, to compensation. That is not true. They are only entitled to compensation when certain changes take place and when provision for compensation is embodied in a code. It is true that over a number of years and up to now, that code has been what is embodied in the Local Government Act, 1933, but local government officers as such, when changes take place within the service, are not entitled to compensation. It is only when changes arising from legislative action impinge on the local government service that they are entitled to compensation if compensation provisions are provided for in the legislation or in the regulations.
I ask the House to remember—and my right hon. Friend must know this to be the case—that there have been many instances in the past where privately owned gas companies have been brought under municipal control—quite rightly, from my point of view. But in all those changes, which took place when private enterprise was brought under municipal control, compensation provisions were inserted to protect the staff of the private undertakings. That is what has happened right up to now. I submit to the House that what was good enough for those changes from private enterprise to local government ought to be good enough so far as these changes are concerned.
The final point I want to make is that, as I am advised, these regulations will make a hotch-potch of conditions in the service. No one will know whether they had an expectation of compensation or not. How can anybody determine that? That is the difficulty under which the staff feel they are placed as a result of these new regulations. So far as the Minister is concerned, and bearing in mind what he has done in bringing gas and electricity and the mines under public ownership, I tell him that I will

gladly fight for those principles on any platform. He has done a grand job of work, but it seems to me that this cheeseparing, as it has been described by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest, is not worthy of the Minister. It seems to me that it has been conceived in the mind of some Treasury official and imposed on the Minister by Treasury control.
I would ask the Minister to think again. I join with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest that we want this industry, brought under national ownership and direction, to be a success. All of us on this side of the House have pledged our political credit on these nationalised industries being a success. We shall win through, despite any criticism from the other side, but we beg the Minister not to leave a rankling sense of injustice among the men and women in the industry in these small, petty matters. Do the big thing. I am sure that if the big thing is done the men and women in the industry will respond and make the industry a success.

8.14 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I am in accord with the greater part of what has been said by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), and I hope in the course of my speech to reinforce a good many of his arguments in rather more pedestrian fashion by calling attention to a number of points which I think are potential hardships inherent in the draft regulations. I shall also ask for some clarification of certain passages in the regulations because, as somebody said to me the other day, these regulations are calculated to confuse the most erudite of Members of Parliament.
Before I do that, I want to refer to two remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sorry he has left his place, but no doubt the Minister will tell him what I say, or he will see it in HANSARD. First, he said that in drafting these regulations the draftsmen, or those responsible for the drafting, have followed the historical precedents of the gas industry, in amalgamations under private enterprise. Those may not be the exact words he used, but I think that is the tenor of what he said. If that is the case, there was one historical precedent which


was lost or which was not followed very far, and that is in regard to the compensation of directors. I think it will be found that in nearly all cases of amalgamation before nationalisation, directors received seven years' compensation. Under these regulations, they get none. I do not think that precedent was followed very far.
The second point to which I want to refer is that the Parliamentary Secretary said that under the electricity regulations only five cases have so far come forward which required investigation and possible compensation. I can assure him that there will be a great many more cases in the gas industry. I have with me rather more than that number of detailed cases and I believe there are a great many more to come.
I think the Minister is to be congratulated on listening to the views of the representatives of the gas officers. I believe they were all grateful for the opportunity and grateful that certain of the points they advanced have been met. I am afraid that most of them were very small points and only of minor importance, for the main objections have not been met. Time after time they have been put forward by the three main bodies which represent the non-manual gas workers. I need not give their names, although someone on the other side asked what they were. I believe it is right that some of these points should be reconsidered, and reconsidered at the highest level—namely, on the Floor of this House.
I want, first, to deal with one or two points under Regulation 2, which sets out what is qualifying service. Speaking generally, I want to reinforce what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christ-church (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), that practically the whole of these regulations are contrary to what the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield referred to as customary practice—practice built up in the whole series of Acts since 1844 and consolidated in the Local Government Act, 1933. In that Act we can find these points more easily than in any of the 30 or more Acts in which they are quoted.
Generally speaking, I feel that these regulations on qualifying service differ from what we were led to expect by

Ministers during the passage of the Bill, particularly by the Solicitor-General on 11th May, the famous occasion on which we debated the substance of these regulations from 12.45 in the morning until 12.30 at night. That was only the prelude to further debates. Lastly, I feel that the regulations are definitely not in accordance with the real spirit of Section 60 of the Act.
I want to discuss one or two cases, but I will not refer again to the matter of war service, which was mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. I think that case was sufficiently advanced. There is the case of the young man who was sent by his parents to a university in order to improve his technical education. As a result of having been sent there, he is disqualified. That is a particularly hard case.
I want to refer also to those who may have been temporarily unemployed, perhaps only for a month or two—a thing which might easily happen during the war in companies which were bombed and put out of operation. It seems extremely hard that these people should be disqualified. I am glad the Government have met one case which was raised downstairs—the case of employees of companies who had a gas side and a water side, and with regard to whom there was some doubt previously. The Solicitor-General gave us a promise in Committee that their case would be met, and I am glad that that promise has been honoured. In looking up that promise, I remarked another thing the Solicitor-General said at the same time. It was that—
… the requirement that they"—meaning applicants for compensation—"should be whole-time only applies in the case of holding companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 11th May, 1948; c. 1671.]
That assurance has gone by the board. Then I came to another one in which the Minister himself, speaking of employed directors who came under the definition of officers—managing directors employed full time, and so on—said:
… it would be possible for a director, who was only part time but whose functions were substantially those of an employee, to have his contract honoured or to claim compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th April, 1948; c. 569.]
There has been a considerable change of policy about that.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me and the House whether that was in connection with the discussion of compensation or the contracts Section?

Colonel Clarke: Not to waste the time of the House, I will pursue my point, and perhaps meanwhile my hon. and gallant Friend will find the reference. There is another category who have been excluded—I think, rather hardly—and they are those who are said not to have had in their contracts of service the condition that they were restricted from doing other paid work. It is very hard to trace that out. There are many cases in which men from gas companies are seconded for other work, possibly to help in some coke sales organisation, or even to help the Minister. I have known cases of that sort. Now it appears that men who assist the Minister will be ineligible for compensation.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch has found the reference for me. We were discussing, when the Minister said those words, the case of a director who was formerly employed whole-time, who should be included as an employee.

Mr. Gaitskell: I was asking on what Clause of the Bill I am said to have made those remarks.

Colonel Clarke: Offhand, I cannot say. I must apologise.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Clause 17.

Mr. Gaitskell: Well, of course, that has nothing whatever to do with these regulations.

Colonel Clarke: In that case, I apologise to the Minister, but I do not withdraw the other quotation I made regarding the Solicitor-General.
With regard to those restricted from doing other paid work, I want to refer to Regulation 16, because there is a relevant case under Regulation 16 that I want to put forward, and it is concerned also with the other regulation to which I have just referred. It is that of a man who is a qualified gas engineer with long service in the industry, an engineer of a big provincial company, who was engaged

as a county council examiner for another company in the same part of the world. He cannot be re-appointed as gas examiner because both the company to which he belonged and the company for which he examined are now under the same management, and, obviously, he would be ineligible, and, of course, no compensation is payable for his loss of the job of examiner. I say, "of course"; but, at the same time, I do not admit it is fair, and I should like to know why there is no compensation here. There is a much more serious side to this story, because if this man loses his main job—the job he now holds with the nationalised industry—for any reason he cannot claim compensation at all for the loss of that main job because he was not restricted from doing a gas examiner's work for another body. The fact that he was able to work for another body apparently makes him ineligible to claim compensation.
Now I want to ask one question with regard to previous expectation. How far do the regulations go in regard to expectation of compensation by office staffs? I am not certain from the regulations whether they are included or not. I think that obviously they ought to be. Next I want to make just one comment on the question of salaries in excess of £4,000 a year. I feel that it is definitely unfair that Mr. X, say, who is reduced from £4,000 to £3,000, should be able to claim compensation for the loss of £1,000 while Mr. Y, who is presumably a more valuable man, since he was being paid £1,000 a year more, when he is reduced from £5,000 to £4,000, gets no compensation at all for the £1,000 he loses. I see no objection to limiting the maximum amount of loss, if necessary; but as the thing stands at present it seems to me to be definitely unfair.
In Regulation 23, does not the Minister think that it would be helpful if the word "service," in the sense in which the word is employed in Regulation 12 (1), were defined? I think he will find that, in order to ascertain what it really means, one has to study Regulations 2, 8 and 12. I think that that is unnecessarily cumbersome.
Lastly, comes the question of service in other gas companies. It was touched on by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch.


Let us take the case of an officer—an engineer, say—of a nationalised gas company who, in his earlier days, perhaps, served in one of those British-owned companies abroad—in Malta or elsewhere in the Mediterranean, or in Colombo, or in Denmark, which employed British staff in the senior posts—and who has come back to this country and is now in the nationalised industry. The fact that he spent part of his time in a company of that sort will prevent him, as I read the regulations, from being able to claim compensation. I believe the same thing would apply if he had not gone as far as Colombo but only as far as Belfast or Jersey, say. Many of the engineers are men of great experience who have had to work under great difficulties, and it does seem hard that they should be prejudiced.
I think, too, that the compensation of salesmen of gas fittings who, at some time earlier in their service, perhaps, were working for a firm of manufacturers, and obtained much experience thereby, will be excluded. The gas industry is a many-sided industry. Only part of it, I am glad to say, has been nationalised, and I think that provision should be made for cases in which men go from one part to the other—or who have gone from one to the other—and that they should not thereby be prejudiced.
I understand that there is talk of discontinuing bonuses to senior officers, such as local managers and engineers. I hope that, if that is the case, there will be some compensation available for them, which may possibly be added to their salaries. I know that these regulations cannot be amended. That, I think, is a mistake. Amended regulations as a whole can, however, be brought before the House, and I think that these regulations should be withdrawn and others substituted. The time lost would be to the advantage of all concerned.
One has to remember that each set of regulations forms a precedent for others. We have already been told that the electricity regulations form a precedent for these regulations. We are building up a whole body of case law which is going to affect all nationalised industries in the future. I think that hon. Members on this side of the House feel that we ought to do all that we can to ameliorate the lot of those who are thrown into bondage under

nationalisation and that we are not wasting the time of the House in raising these points.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that the Minister will under no consideration bow to the blandishments of the other side. I am afraid that I cannot share the deep sympathy which the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) has for the poor director who is not going to have anything above £4,000 taken into consideration.

Colonel Clarke: I never said anything about £4,000 for directors. I was talking about senior employees with £4,000. The directors' fees in the gas industry are very much smaller—very often only £200 or £300. It is only the managing directors who get anything like £4,000.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he thought it was wrong that a man whose salary was reduced from £4,000 to £3,000 should be entitled to compensation on the £1,000 difference, but presumably the man whose salary was reduced from £5,000 to £4,000 should not be permitted to count the £1,000 in compensation. Did he say that or not?

Colonel Clarke: To the best of my belief that is what I said.

Mr. Fernyhough: I must repeat that I cannot, of course, share his feeling because neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor many other hon. Members opposite have ever been very much concerned about compensating the workers in private industry who have become redundant. There are many workers in my own Division employed in private ship-repairing yards who find that their services are no longer required. I would like to feel that in private industry which hon. Members opposite control they were going to introduce methods which were as generous for the employees in that industry as those which the Government are offering under statutory regulations to those employed in the gas industry.
Another reason why I hope the Minister will not give way is because, if new regulations were introduced, it would mean an added burden upon this nationalised industry. It might be only a slight burden, but Members opposite are always


happy when a nationalised industry is having difficulties and is not making a profit, because they can then make political capital out of it, whether it be the railways, the coal industry, or civil aviation; yet here they are asking for a further burden to be placed on this industry.
I consider that the terms of compensation are most generous. They are more generous than anything the hon. and gallant Member gave to his employees in the coal industry when it was in the hands of private enterprise. I am not prepared to see this concession made, because it applies only to a small section of the community and not to the workers as a whole. If there is a principle involved here, then let it be applied to all industries, whether they are nationalised or in the hands of private enterprise.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to raise a point in connection with these regulations which I have raised on other regulations. Before doing so, may I say that we ought to oppose these regulations, not on the grounds put forward by Members opposite, but because they are on the generous side? I wonder what the old age pensioners will think about this compensation. I am certain that they will have bitter comments to make about the readiness with which money is found for so-called loss of emoluments, when it is so difficult to find any money for them. I suggest that the regulations should limit the amount to £1,000, which is the salary Members of Parliament receive, although many people are prepared to argue it is too much. Certainly, anyone who is redundant and receives a pension calculated on that figure, is not doing too badly. If a director with £5,000 to £8,000 has his pension calculated on £4,000, he will be getting a pretty good haul, and he can then walk into another job taking his haul with him unlike the old age pensioner who gets no pension if he works. I would be in favour of giving them, what I have always asked for the working classes—work or full maintenance.
We find that Part IV of the regulations refers to persons employed whole-time as inspectors of meters under Section 4 of the Sale of Gas Act. If we read on, we find that they have to be eight years on

the job. Suppose a lad was redundant when the parish councils were abolished in 1929 and received substantial compensation, and then a year or so later got a job with a local authority as an inspector of meters. From then on, he could be working as an inspector of meters. Now, under these regulations, he can get another pension to add to the one he is already getting.

Mr. Robens: No.

Mr. Gallacher: Where does it say in the regulations that he cannot? Suppose he was in some other job, was getting a pension, and then gets a job in another industry which is nationalised, as a result of which he receives another pension. There is nothing in the regulations—and I have looked at them all carefully—to stop anyone doing that.
The important thing, however, is that too much consideration is being shown to these people. Every effort should be made to get them comparable jobs if possible, but at least to get them jobs. There should be no question of paying pensions to people in jobs of this kind and leaving them free to get other well-paid employment and additional pensions. There is a lot of this kind of thing going on in Scotland today and, I am sure, in England, too. I hope the day will soon come when the question of compensation is put on a sensible basis. At one time the Labour movement always demanded for all kinds of work, whether done by labourers, skilled men at the bench or clerks in the office, work or full maintenance. If we apply that principle in this case we shall be doing something which will be accepted generally by the working class throughout the country.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is very hard on the workers of this country, whether they work by mind or arm. He seems to believe that almost everyone is over-remunerated. All I can say is that if anyone in England could enjoy a third of the material advantages of his friends the commissars in Russia, he would be a very happy person indeed.

Mr. Gallacher: Boloney. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman get another record?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) seemed to share the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, because he also does not believe in compensating directors or managers who have served in the gas industry.

Mr. Fernyhough: I made it perfectly clear that I could not support the Opposition in their demand that amounts above £4,000 should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Bracken: It is not a very good thing for such a loyal supporter of the Government as the hon. Member to adopt that attitude.

Mr. Fernyhough: Why not?

Mr. Bracken: Because the Minister has made appointments to the boards and sometimes pays the chairmen £7,000 to £8,000 a year. I should not think that trade unionists serving on the Gas Council and on the regional boards will thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion about their pensions. It is the first time that that has come from the Labour benches, and it raises interesting new points.
The Parliamentary Secretary justified this order by quoting a number of deplorable pension precedents established by this Government. In his amiable way the hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "We have perpetrated many wickednesses; let us be consistent." In that respect and in that respect only are the Government consistent. We of the Opposition have always voted against Bills promoted by this Government that deny fair compensation to men or women, who have served the industry faithfully, and who lose their employment because of the Government's itch to nationalise industry. So we must do tonight.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) made an admirable speech. It convinced a lot of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it certainly convinced all of my hon. Friends who sit behind me. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must not interrupt. He has enough Parliamentary ability to know he must not set a bad example to the gentlemen behind him. It means nothing to the Home Secretary that people who have served the gas industry all the days of their lives are deprived of pensions. They have

never enjoyed the emoluments which he receives, and it ill becomes a man of his character to jeer at those who are less well paid and who have not got any £5,000 official motorcars.
I know some more examples—I do not think they are very numerous—of injustices created by this Bill. I do not like to use the names of private persons in public Debate in this House who have served the industry. If I send them to the right hon. Gentleman he might be able to consider the unfortunate lot of these people. I do not think that anything we say to the right hon. Gentleman would appeal to him, and if it did, the presence of his gaolers behind him would not allow him to do anything about it. I should like to take some notice of the admirable speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), one of the most respected in this House, and even more respected by me after the speech he made tonight.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman will work him into a nice job in the City yet.

Mr. Bracken: I am looking forward to the time when the hon. Member for West Fife will come into the City, as I am sure he will, before he gets very much older. As a deviationist he will soon get the sack.
Let us return to the speech made by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield. He said, I think truly, that a sense of injustice will abide in the minds of many people who have faithfully served the gas industry. After all, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest said, the gas industry has been nationalised. We must make the best of it. It is highly desirable therefore to encourage the very large number of persons who serve the industry to feel that they have as good a master in the Gas Council as they had in their old bosses. Believe me, very few of them think that today, as the Minister will discover to his cost before very long.
Surely it is wise for the Minister to accept the advice given him from both sides of the House. I have had a great many dealings with the Minister and I consider that he is one of the most successful members of this Government. That


is hardly a compliment, but I might as well say it. He is also a man who has fulfilled all the promises he made to us in relation to the many issues concerning gas which were raised in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister will now approach this matter in a really broad, statesmanlike way, and will deal with the not very many cases of persons who have been harshly treated. I could repeat, but I certainly could not improve upon, the arguments put forward by my hon. and gallant Friends, but I am not one who ever wishes to take up the time of the House with any form of repetition. I feel that I must do my duty before I go to parties, but there is not very much point in my repeating the case so very well put by my hon. and gallant Friend, and so I shall content myself with saying "Ditto" to it.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the exceptionally hard cases that have been created. They are not very numerous and they certainly will not cost very much money. In view of the extravagance, the wicked extravagance, of this Government it seems to me that upon an occasion like this the Minister could relieve hardships without any considerable cost to the State. I am not in favour of recommending any great increase in expenditure, but there are real grievances. They are not consciously created, of that I am certain.
I know enough about the Ministry of Fuel and Power to believe that the officials there have a real desire to be fair in drawing up their compensation terms. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, who is their political head and who has been well educated by those remarkable bureaucrats, will meet us tonight by telling us that he will reconsider the suggested compensation terms. If the right hon. Gentleman decides to take the good advice of his own follower and of my hon. and gallant Friends, he will greatly improve the compensation terms.

8.55 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I am sorry to detain the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) any longer. I will certainly be as brief as I can, but I am sure he will be prepared to put in a little more time here to hear my reply before

he goes off to other engagements Some hon. Members have asked specific questions, and before I turn to the bigger issues which have been raised, I should like to deal with them. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) complained that, as he thought, under the regulations a person who was already in receipt of a pension could receive another pension in addition. Perhaps he will look at Regulation 12 (3), or I might suggest that if he gets his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) to advise him on this, he will find the point taken care of there. These legal documents are not always very easy to understand, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Finsbury could help him.
In the same regulation the word "service" occurs, and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) asked if we would define it specifically. We do not think it is really necessary to give a definition in the order. I think it means quite clearly total or aggregate employment. I cannot see what else it could possibly mean and I do not think there is any difficulty there. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead also raised a number of individual cases. It is impossible for me to deal with them. Obviously each individual case will have to be settled on its merits according to the circumstances in the light of the regulations. I would only say that in one or two cases I do not think his interpretation was correct, but I cannot go further than that without having all the particulars, and in any case it is not my business under the regulations to do that. Provision is made for a referee to be appointed to hear appeals, and any case of that kind would be considered by him.
The main issue which we have to consider is whether, on the whole, these regulations are fair or not. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth and his hon. and gallant Friends that one must bear in mind that any expenditure incurred as the result of these regulations will be paid for by consumers of gas and that the consumers of gas will include workers in almost every industry, many of whom have nothing like the protection which will be accorded to persons in the gas industry under these regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)


very naturally expressed that point of view because of the terrible experiences which his constituents unfortunately had to undergo in the past. One cannot overlook that aspect of the question. On the other hand, the Government recognise that there are precedents for payment of compensation as a result of amalgamations, and those equally have to be taken into account.
Therefore, what we have tried to do, not only in these regulations but in the others which have been approved by the House, is to build up a general code. The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead was right on this subject. The Parliamentary Secretary read out a list of the points which are covered by that general code, such as the length of qualifying period, the provision that not more than £4,000 be taken into account, and so on. We do not say that that code is exactly the same as was provided under previous Statutes; we say quite definitely that in certain respects previous Statutes were too generous. That is why we do not think it necessary to provide compensation for part-time or non-executive directors. That is why we do not think it necessary to provide compensation at any time whether or not the person concerned has another job. We take the view that the position is different today from what it was then but, apart from one or two matters of that kind, in the main I would not say that the code is so very different.
However, we must also take into account whether an industry with which we are concerned did or did not have any statutory history in this matter. In the case of the railways and electricity, there were Statutes which laid down that in certain circumstances—in the event of amalgamation and so on—the workers in those industries who were displaced were entitled under the Statute to certain compensation. That has never been the case with the gas industry. It is true that there have been Private Acts under which compensation arrangements were made, but there never has been a general statutory position in the same way as there was in electricity and transport. That is precisely the reason why when we came to gas—and I emphasise that in doing so we have not departed from any principle; on the contrary, it was directly in line with our principles—we decided that it was necessary to introduce this qualifica-

tion about expectation. In so far as a man had a reasonable expectation of obtaining compensation in the indusry before nationalisation, he will have no difficulty in satisfying the boards, or the referee if the case goes to him, that such was the case. If, on the other hand, he did not have such an expectation the position is different.
I have been asked to try to give some clearer interpretation of what we mean by the words used in Regulation 7 (2):
In these regulations the expression 'person with an expectation' means a person who has a reasonable expectation, in the event of an amalgamation before the vesting date of the gas undertaking in connection with which he was employed last before the date with another such undertaking, of the payment to him of compensation for loss of employment or earnings.
That is pretty clear. It means, does it not, that if he were to claim compensation now he would have to say, if there had been an amalgamation before the vesting date, "I certainly would have been able to claim compensation and would have been awarded it"? He may be able to point to specific Private Acts which laid it down. In the case of the undertaking in which he is actually employed, there may have been a previous Private Act when that undertaking was formed as a result of the amalgamation of two others. Obviously that would be a strong case. Or he might find it sufficient to point to neighbouring undertakings which had Private Acts of this kind. Or he may find it sufficient—and it is not for me to say whether it is so or not—simply to point to the general custom of the industry which, admittedly, by the 1930's was that compensation of some kind should be paid. That is why my hon. Friend said he believed that the vast majority of the persons in the industry would find little difficulty in proving that they had expectations.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but, as I understand it now, the only certain case in which a man can claim compensation is if he can point to an Act, either of his own company or an adjacent one, which would under its terms entitle him to claim compensation as set out in Regulation 7 (2). Is that correct?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not endeavouring to interpret these regulations. Obviously, I cannot do that. I am only giving my


opinion of the kind of arguments that will be put forward and will be acceptable. It is not possible to say with absolute certainty until one knows the individual circumstances. I think the words, which were discussed with these various associations, were acceptable to them. I know perfectly well they were opposed to the principle but the words were acceptable, and I do not think there was much anxiety in this instance about people being left out. One thing, at any rate, of which I am quite certain is that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch, in taking the particular instance which he quoted—I forget its exact details—was certainly adopting a far too narrow interpretation of this phrase—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyrerose —

Mr. Gaitskell: —but as regards the question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead as to whether or not office staffs were covered, there again I cannot give an answer, because everything depends on the actual circumstances. It depends on whether there was evidence that previously in the industry, in the event of an amalgamation, there had been compensation for persons in that position. I could not possibly say more than that.
I turn now to one or two of the other points which hon. Members have raised. Hon. Members opposite objected, as they did in the case of the Electricity Regulations, to the qualifying period being as long as eight years. Surely it is agreed by everybody that there must be some qualifying period.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Member says that there should be no qualifying period at all. That is ridiculous. Why should compensation be given to a man who has been in the industry only a week when he becomes redundant? I have never known of redundancy schemes in which there was not some qualifying period. The question is, how long it should be? Indeed, in the previous arrangements in these industries—I do not think the hon. and gallant Member was right about this—there certainly were for the most part qualifying periods of some length.
We take the view that if a man is to be able to claim compensation for loss of employment or emoluments he must show that he really was in the proper sense of the word a member of that industry, somebody whose life was in that industry, somebody who really could claim it was a serious hardship for him to lose his job or to suffer a loss of emoluments. On the whole, the period of eight years which we have chosen, and which applies to all these different regulations, is not an unreasonable length.

Mr. Bracken: Will this ruling apply to all those who serve on nationalised boards?

Mr. Gaitskell: Those who serve on nationalised boards get no protection whatever from these regulations. The right hon. Gentleman is following a red herring, as, no doubt, he is fully aware.
We have in these regulations, as my hon. Friend pointed out, made certain concessions as compared with some of the previous regulations. We have agreed to include the period of training so long as the man was in the gas industry beforehand. If we were to try to introduce, as I think was suggested by one hon. Member, an arrangement under which the period of training qualified, or was to be treated as part of the qualifying period, whether or not the man had been in the industry beforehand, we would have an extremely difficult situation. Anybody who had been to a university and taken any kind of scientific degree, for instance, could claim if he then went to the gas industry that that was really part of the training for it. In the case of gas it is not possible to point to anything sufficiently specialised from which one could be quite sure that a man was going into the industry.

Colonel Clarke: Will time served as a pupil count?

Mr. Gaitskell: If it is a period of training, I should have thought there was no doubt about it whatever. As far as I understood the case put forward by the hon. and gallant Member, he was referring to time which was less than 30 hours a week. Why should it be less than 30 hours a week? Even if any one serves as a pupil, presumably he is doing the job properly, and I should have thought


that he would probably be covered. As I said earlier, however—and I must safeguard myself—I do not wish anything I have said to be taken as indicating that I am deciding that a particular individual is or is not entitled to compensation. Obviously, one cannot do that. It must depend on all the circumstances.
The only other major point raised was the objection to the £4,000 a year provision. Our answer to that is very simple. These regulations are designed to deal with cases of hardship. They are not dealing—I had to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead on this—with contracts. There is no question, under these regulations, of laying down what people are going to be entitled to receive under their contracts. Most people with a job worth £4,000 a year and over will certainly have contracts. We say that when it comes to a matter of hardship, if a man is going to receive £2,666 a year that ought to be enough to keep him going.

Mr. Bracken: What about the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman said that last time. Certainly by comparison the Lord Chancellor is treated rather well, but surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to put the blame for that on the Labour Government.
We think that in this case there is no doubt at all that a rule of that kind ought to be made, as it has been made in

other cases. In these regulations we cannot satisfy everybody; that is quite impossible. Some of the suggestions which were put to me could not be carried out because it would be impracticable to draw the line. We believe that the general code that we have worked out, bearing in mind the statutory history of these industries, is reasonable. We have made concessions on minor points after discussions with the trade unions and trade associations, and we think that in the main these regulations are fair and reasonable. For that reason, I ask the House to approve them.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) is not here, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make clear to me whether Regulation 12 (3) refers to anyone getting a pension from one source and then being transferred to another job in the gas industry? Regulation 1 (1) lays down that compensation will be paid for loss of employment. Does Regulation 12 (3) have anything to do with that? If a man is getting a pension from some entirely different source, is he entitled, under Regulation 1 (1), to compensation for loss of employment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member made quite a long speech before he interrupted the second time.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 66.

Division No. 296.]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Collindridge, F.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Colman, Miss, G. M.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T. N.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Cooper, G.
Gallacher, W.


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Cullen, Mrs.
Gibbins, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Daggar, G.
Gibson, C. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Daines, P.
Gilzean, A.


Bacon, Miss A
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Baird, J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Grenfell, D. R.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grey, C. F.


Battley, J. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Berry, H.
Deer, G.
Gunter, R. J.


Beswick, F.
Diamond, J.
Hale, Leslie


Blackburn, A. R.
Donovan, T.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Boardman, H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bottomley, A. G.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hardy, E. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Dye, S.
Harrison, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hobson, C. R.


Champion, A. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Holman, P.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Cluse, W. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Horabin, T. L.


Cobb, F. A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Houghton, Douglas


Cooks, F. S.
Forman, J. C.
Hoy, J.




Hubbard, T.
Moody. A. S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholine)
Moyle, A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Murray, J. D
Sorensen, R. W.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Steele, T.


Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Stokes, R. R.


Jay, D. P. T.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Stubbs, A. E.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
O'Brien, T.
Swingler, S.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


John, W.
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworlh)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Keenan, W.
Pagiter, G. A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kenyon, C.
Parker, J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinley, J.
Pearson, A
Timmons, J.


Kirby, B. V.
Popplewell, E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lang, G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Warbey, W. N.


Lavers, S.
Price, M. Philip$
Watkins, T. E.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Proctor, W. T.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Leonard, W.
Randall, H. E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.
West, D. G.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rankin, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reeves, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Logan, D. G.
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McAdam, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


McAllister, G.
Robens, A.
Williams. D J (Neath)


McEntee, V. La T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvorshire)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


McGhee, H. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McKinlay, A. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willis, E.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Royle, C.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


MatPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sargood, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Scollan, T.
Woods, G. S.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Segal, Dr. S.
Yales, V F.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Sharp, Granville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J.





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Jennings, R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Lancaster, Col C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Birch, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lipson, D. L.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Snadden, W. M.


Byers, Frank
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Carson, E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Teeling, William


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Duthie, W. S.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Erroll, F. J.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Gage, C.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.
Mr. Studholme and


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Gas (Staff Compensation) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.

PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise certain improve-

ments in and around Parliament Square, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Minister of Works incurred for the purposes of any improvement scheme referred to in the said Act. and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys, being an increase attributable to any payment out of the Road Fund of grants in respect of the doing of any work authorised by that Act."

GOLD (DOLLAR PRICE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I have been seeking for some time to raise what I deem to be a very important issue on which I can get no real clear answer from the Treasury Bench, even though I have raised it at Question time. What I seek to do tonight is to explain to His Majesty's representatives at the Treasury why it is important that they should instruct their representatives who go to the International Monetary Fund meetings and other similar meetings, to press for a revision in the dollar price of gold. I am perfectly aware of the fact that they cannot control that particular price, but they can make representations. So far as I know, and so far as I have been able to ascertain from the answers I have received from the Treasury Bench, no such representations have been made.
I find myself in a somewhat paradoxical position, because I have always objected to a gold standard, but if we are to have a gold standard for heaven's sake let it be a proper one and not a fictitious one. My claim tonight is that we are in fact, through Bretton Woods and the International Monetary Fund agreements, hitched, through the dollar, to gold. Yet, because of the incidence of voting power, particularly on the International Monetary Fund—on which we are very sparsely represented having regard to the fact that we in the British Empire produce most of the gold—so far we have not succeeded in getting a revision of the kind which seems to me to be desirable.
I said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question time yesterday did he not agree:
… that the first way to ensure money having a real value is to realise that it cannot have it if it is hitched to a fictitious gold value? 
I described such a state of affairs as:
living in a complete state of cuckoodom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 942.]
I repeat that tonight, because, believe it or not, the situation is this. Today, on the latest information which I have from the City of London, in Bombay gold on the so-called free market—which of

course I admit is a limited market—is selling at £32 per fine ounce, whereas the official price after devaluation is £12 10s.
One of the things which most astonishes me, is that I have never yet succeeded in implanting in the brain of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—I am saying this in no disrespectful sense at all—or the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor himself, that in fact the price of gold as compared with pre-war is only 70 per cent. up, and we are hitched to it through dollar control. Yet the price of practically everything else has multiplied three or four times. I shall not endeavour to do it, but one can argue that it would be a good thing to abandon gold as a standard and have a wheat standard. There would be a good deal more sense in it than in this present situation where we find ourselves artificially hitched to an artificial value.
If we take the cost of iron and steel in comparison with pre-war, gold is only 70 per cent. up but iron and steel is three times the price. We get a lot of lessons or instructions from America saying that we ought to reduce our costs of production. What in fact is the case is that we now pay 16s. a bushel for wheat whereas before the war we only paid 4s. As the costs of production primarily depend on the food which we put into the stomachs of the men who make the goods, how can we get the costs of production down as compared with pre-war if we are paying four times the amount for the food to put into their bellies? The Americans ought to set about reducing their costs of production and not we reduce ours, but that is another matter to be referred to on another occasion.
Our best dollar producer is said to be whisky, and of course it is. It is our best dollar producer but whereas we are paying four times the price for wheat that we paid before the war, the Americans are only paying 12 dollars 10 cents for a case of whisky where before the war they paid 11 dollars 25 cents. In other words, the price is only about 10 per cent. up! I am not seeking tonight to develop this question of the complete and crazy out-of-balance into which this ridiculous monetary system has got us. What I am seeking to do in the first place is to get the Treasury through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his minions—that is not a disrespectful word, my hon. Friend


will realise; "understrappers" is equally offensive; I mean the people who are not equally as important as he is at these meetings—to see that if gold is to remain, as remain it must so long as the Bretton Woods Agreement goes on, as the basis of dollar currency then that basis had better be a sound one and not a completely fictitious one.
After all, it is just as well to remember that the stuff put into one's teeth by dentists, known as dental gold, is different from monetary gold to which my hon. Friend so often refers at Question Time and not nearly of the same fineness. It is only 18 carat as against 24, yet it costs about 25 per cent. more than this artificially low fixed price of the fine ounce. That surely ought to give my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cause to reflect.
I think I should not be unduly flattering myself or the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who is not here, if I reminded the House of what we said at the time of Bretton Woods. I happen to be one of those people who objected to the Bretton Woods Agreement and voted accordingly but at that time I actually said:
As to the valuation of the £ at 4.03 dollars, who can really say what the value of the £ will be in six months or a year hence? No expert can. … I do not see how any expert can tell me what the pound sterling is going to be worth in 12 months' time or, for that matter, in six months' time. I do not believe that some of them even know what it is worth now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1945; Vol. 417, c. 708.]
That is precisely the fact and it is true, as anybody who has travelled and had any dealings in international trade knows, that at the very time when we fixed the pound sterling at 4.03 dollars, pounds were being sold quite frequently in places like Lisbon and elsewhere at 2.50 and 2.75 dollars. The party opposite are very much to blame in this matter. A handful had enough courage to disobey the instructions of their Leader and to go into the Lobby against the Agreement but the majority did that most despicable of all actions, as I see it in the House of Commons—they sat still and did nothing. They are not relieved from the fault of our having arrived at this disastrous situation as a result of the

Bretton Woods and International Monetary Fund Agreements.
I want to explain to the Economic Secretary one of the chief reasons why he and his right hon. and learned Friend are perfectly entitled to go to the International Monetary Fund or to any other international monetary conference such as the financial ones which took place recently between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Finance Minister of Canada, and Mr. Snyder in New York and claim that the whole of the Bretton Woods basis should be revised. It comes under Article 1 (2) of the International Monetary Fund Articles where it is laid down that one of the main objects of the fund is the maintenance of high employment everywhere and real income, and the development of the productive resources of all members as the primary object of economic policy.
I claim that the United States have fallen down badly there. I am not saying this in an aggressive spirit against the United States. I have always claimed that the Americans do not understand the situation. They understand the old-fashioned approach to the problem, but they do not understand what they have to do now under modern conditions, when they themselves are not succeeding in maintaining full employment in their own country or in raising the standard of living of the people of that country to the level to which those people have a right to expect, having regard to their productive capacity. That being so, under the written rules of the agreement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a perfect right to claim that something should be done to change the awkward situation into which the whole of world trade has now got.
I want to state comparatively briefly, although I do not promise to be short, the case for gold revaluation. The sterling area, from our point of view, produces 60 per cent. of the world's gold. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury tells me that last year South Africa shipped to the United States no less than £100 million of gold which at the ruling price was £8 12s. 3d., or 12 million ounces. Unfortunately, they have now ceased publication of the figures because that was suppressed during the war for security purposes and now that suppression is being continued because it suits


the financial humbugs and makes it more possible for them to swindle the rest of the world. I am surprised that the Economic Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer should subscribe to such a policy of secrecy. Again, that is a matter which can be pursued on another occasion.
The effect is what is important. If, during 1948, instead of the fictitiously low level of £8 12s. 3d. which was the Bretton Woods level of gold at that time before devaluation, gold had been set free, and the market price proved to be £22 10s. which was what gold in such free markets as those were sold at, I cannot say what would have happened, but we might suppose that the whole lot would have gone. I am certain that a good deal of it would have because a few months ago South Africa let loose £10 million of gold and the whole lot was snapped up at £22. That is the only figure which I can quote and which hon. Members can check. The effect of selling that gold at £8 12s. 3d. instead of £22 10s. meant that £2,200 million dollars less than ought have been was put into circulation in world trade. That is what happened.
I am not going to bore the House with arithmetic because most Members of this House are bad mathematicians, and, anyway, the House only gets bored stiff with a long list of figures. All that one can do when a Member makes a speech, such as I am trying to make, containing a lot of figures is to shove it over to one's accountant the next day and ask him to say whether they are right or wrong. As a result of this artificial restriction, £2,200 million too few dollars were injected into the whole circulation of international world trade.
Let us look at the other picture. I have forgotten the number now, but during the war I asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were engaged in digging gold out of the ground from one hole, refining it, and then sending it across to the other side of the world and burying it in another hole. The answer was about 460,000, but one of my more facetious friends asked whether that included women gold-diggers, which quite spoilt the effect. We have here the astonishing situation that the United States are pouring out goods—for the purpose of what? For the purpose of acquiring gold, in my conception

but not in the conception of the majority of the world who support this ridiculous Agreement, including my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is then buried in the vaults at Fort Knox to the order of 24,500 million dollars, or £10,000 million; or about one-third of the British National Debt in gold. There it is, doing nothing, representing nothing, and utterly useless.
That is at a fictitious value, but if we put it up to its real value, it is two or three times that amount. If we did that, it would be £27.000 million, which is equal to our National Debt in gold. It means that the wretched population of the United States are being deprived of goods to this value while the gold lies idle and useless in Fort Knox. It brings to my mind the old story of how someone emptied a couple of cases of gold and put concrete chippings equivalent in weight, and in volume. The cases were then shipped as gold to London, and from London to somewhere else as gold, eventually arriving at Fort Knox where they were accidently dropped and broken, revealing their contents—there was the concrete chippings, but it did not really matter at all.

Sir Frank Sanderson: The hon. Member has pointed out that the total value of the gold held by America is £10,000 million sterling, and that if the gold was written up to the value suggested by him it would amount to £27,000 million. That would mean a profit of £17,000 million being placed in the hands of the United States. Does he desire to make a present of £17,000 million to America, in view of the fact that he does not like gold anyway.

Mr. Stokes: The fact is that they have got it, and it does not matter whether we write it up or write it down, because it is there. The fact that the value has changed has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering where Government responsibility comes in on this.

Mr. Stokes: I am trying to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ought to do something about it. The only way I can really persuade him to do that, because I do not get many opportunities of speaking to him except through HANSARD, is by reading a little lecture on what I call the first principles of phoney


economics, in order that perhaps at breakfast time tomorrow he will read, mark and inwardly digest what I have been saying and do something about it. After all, it is his fault, because he allows this to go on. South Africa would willingly stop sending gold to America, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "No." The Chancellor of the Exchequer gets all the finance Ministers together and perverts them. That is one of the things I am trying to avoid. I am trying to save his soul, as well as the rest of them! All I can do is to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I am not trying to give instructions to Mr. Snyder, but I hope he will read my speech.
However, I will leave that point because I have finished with it in deference to your wishes, Sir, and say why the Chancellor should support my proposition. In the first place, there is considerable difficulty on the Gold Coast today. As I explained before you came back to the Chair, Sir, whereas other prices have gone up three times the price of gold has gone up by only 70 per cent.—less than double—and the cost of production is very high. The result is that about 90 per cent. of the gold mining companies on the west coast of Africa have been closed. If gold was restored to the free market price, the Gold Coast, instead of producing 600,000 ounces of gold would produce at least 1 million, which would solve the great economic problem of one of our Colonies. In the last 50 years 120 companies have been started on the Gold Coast; now they have been reduced to 12, of which only six are positively active.
Then we come to the question of sales to Belgium, Switzerland and other countries. If we add up the balance sheet of £100 million from South Africa which should have been valued at £270 million; Gold Coast production, which ought to have been £22½ million instead of £2½ million; sales to Belgium, which ought to have cost £56 million instead of £20 million; sales to Switzerland, which instead of costing £15 million, ought to have cost £45 million; sales from Britain to the rest of the world, £135 million; and add the production of Canada and Australia, which is about 2 million ounces, which gives us a figure of £45 million, we find, very remarkably—this

is a problem which no one seems to understand except me—that extra income from the hard currency areas would be £321 million.
Our deficit for the half year was £239 million. Hon. Members can add up the figures for themselves; I know my figures are correct. I expect the Economic Secretary "cooked"—I mean prepared—the figures that went into the White Paper, showing that £239 million was our deficit for the half year. My system would give us an extra £321 million for the full year; in other words, it would get us more than half way home. I know what my hon. Friend will say in reply to me before I hear it. He will say that it is nothing to do with us, but all to do with America. I want to advance suggestions as to why he should persuade the Americans that it is in their interest to support my system. He and I and all of us know that world trade is out of balance. If we are to have gold based on the monetary system which we have got, however much we seek to deny it, it ought to be at the right value and not at a fictitious value. To revalue gold at the actual selling price on a free market would tend to restore real values the world over.
Second, it would expand the basis of credit everywhere, particularly in America. The mere fact that it did that would stop deflation on the other side of the Atlantic and, much more than that, would prevent future inflation in America because that expansion was available. I know that people say that what would happen would be that prices would break and there would be inflation. I do not believe that to be true. My hon. Friend should persuade America to revalue at a higher level. Instead of £12 10s. per fine ounce gold should be £22, or let me put it modestly and say 70 dollars, per fine ounce. There is in fact no direct relationship between the amount of gold at Fort Knox and the amount of dollars in circulation. Anyway, that is under the control of the Treasury in America, and they can stop inflation if they want to or they can let it go oh.
Fourthly, it would do one of the things of which we are all rather afraid, it would get us over the difficulty of the keen embarrassment which we by our action are going to cause American manufacturers as a result of deflation. Without


any doubt whatsoever, we are going to take away from America very considerable markets if we go about it the right way. Inevitably, because of the increased circulation of dollars as a result of devaluation throughout the rest of the world there will be a bigger demand for American goods.
The dollar gap would be closed over night. It would be brought within what the Chancellor has called "manageable proportions" which to me is very like the lawyer's term of "reasonable"—nobody knows what it means! At any rate, the gap would be reasonably reduced, and the headache of my right hon. and learned Friend would be gone with the result he could sleep peacefully at night. There is only one thing which is argued against this policy, and that is that if we devalue gold it is going to place Russia in a considerable advantage. I do not know what Russia produces in the way of gold, nor does my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I do not very much care, but I put it to him that that is a fictitious and silly argument. If the effect of revaluing gold was to prevent prices falling, then Russia would be in exactly the same position as far as what she could get for her gold if American prices dropped as they surely will do if she does not revalue. That argument from the American point of view is nonsensical.
In conclusion I place the responsibility for the whole position on the indecent haste with which Bretton Woods was rushed through this House despite the protests of many Members and the promises that were given to us by the Coalition Government. As a result where do we find ourselves? The "Manchester Guardian" put it rather aptly on 17th December when discussing Mr. Havenga's representations on behalf of South Africa that America should agree to a reduction in the price of gold. This is what it said:
Even though Wednesday's harsh words have given way to some compromise there still seems to be some latent resentment among European members that the Monetary Fund has become an automatic instrument of American policies. That this is so is hardly surprising since of the total 92,090 votes the United States has about 30 per cent. herself compared with the 14.39 per cent. held by the United Kingdom, 5.97 per cent. by France and 1.36 by South Africa, which produces all the gold.
If I were a South African politician I should never go to bed. I should talk

about it every day and all day and I would insist on breaking away from the whole European International Monetary Fund. That is the trouble. They cannot, in my view, get this changed and that is what some of us said to the predecessors of the present Government in December, 1945. I emphasise that unless very strong representations are made at the right place and at the right time and frequently, nothing will be done, and the sooner something is done the better.
My hon. Friend cannot give the lists, but there are £9,000 million of this gold in Fort Knox, which is three-fifths of the world's stock of gold and twice as much* as is needed by America to back her present currency. The "Financial Times" on 7th November—I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) is not here, because it is not often I have anything complimentary to say about anything he owns—was very truthful when it said that the amount of 24,583 million dollars was twice what America needs to back her paper currency and specified banking credits.
All this gold forms the basis of the blood circulation of world trade and it is artificially restricted and stopped in its flow round the veins of industry. Then hon. Members wonder why we are in a mess. Of course we are in a mess. We never ought to have agreed to it in the first place. The fact of the matter is that what we are really doing in this country, as a result of what has happened after the war, is that we are bearing the brunt of American inflation.

Sir F. Sanderson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question? He would agree, I am sure, that the Treasury cannot instruct America what to do with her gold. Is he suggesting to the Treasury that they should prevail upon the United States of America to free the price of gold?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, that is one of the things that I am suggesting. Proper representation should be made in order to make it clear how absolutely cuckoo the present situation is. My own view is that the gold which now lies lustreless in Fort Knox would shine with far greater lustre if it were used to make the wheels of industry revolve again. That is the form of revaluation I wish to see.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in the remarks he has made. We voted together in the Lobby on that famous occasion, 13th December, 1945. I would go even further than he has gone. He has suggested that the Treasury should proceed to make a proper recommendation in the appropriate quarter. I cannot see any conceivable reason why the Treasury cannot go further than that. It is a case of Governmental responsibility certainly.
I am trying to think what the Economic Secretary could oppose to the suggestion I am about to make. He may plead the sanctity of contracts and of a treaty, but it really is late in the day to plead the sanctity of the Washington Treaty to which this country put its name after this House gave that unfortunate vote on 13th December, 1945. It is no use pleading the sanctity of that. There were three major conditions to which we subscribed in that agreement, as the conditions of getting the American loan. One of them was that we agreed to accept the gold standard which fixed the pound in terms of the dollar and the dollar in terms of gold. That is the position which the hon. Member for Ipswich and I want to alter.
How is it that that condition is sacred? There were other conditions which the Government have, in one case overtly and in the other case covertly, repudiated. I refer specifically to the contract into which we entered, that, from the middle of 1947, sterling should be convertible for the purpose of current transactions. That convertibility lasted only a few weeks. We repudiated it. It is no use mincing words. That is what we did in the summer of 1947. If the convertibility condition proved not to be sacrosanct, why should the gold condition?
Another condition which we covertly repudiated was with regard to the notorious Article 9 and the principle of non-discrimination which, in effect, meant that if for reasons of shortage of dollars we could not afford to buy a certain commodity from America, we were debarred from entering into special arrangements with, for example, our Dominions, to supply the thing for sterling. We were supposed to observe that condition, but in every bilateral treaty into which we

have entered in the last two years, and also in the arrangements which we have made directly with Colonies, Dominions and foreign countries, we have tacitly, if not overtly, repudiated that condition of non-discrimination. Non-discrimination has proved to be not sacrosanct in practice because it was unworkable. It is therefore useless for the Economic Secretary to get up, as I fear he may, and to say that this country is bound by an international contract which this House ratified on 13th December, 1945.
After, all, one cannot consider this matter in a vacuum. It has to be considered in relation to its antecedent causes, and the whole story began at Bretton Woods in 1944. The relevant and significant part of what happened at Bretton Woods is that, of the 45 nations there assembled to consider the whole problem of the post-war international currency, if I may perpetrate a piece of quite deliberate meiosis, 44 had not much knowledge of what they were talking about. Unfortunately, the British plan sponsored by the late Lord Keynes, which was comparatively reasonable, was turned down, and the American plan of the gold-based dollar as the international currency prevailed.
It prevailed because at Bretton Woods the Americans were able to convince the 44 "not know-how" nations of two things. First, they said that at the end of the war Great Britain would be bankrupt; that she would have some £3,000 million of 3-months bills outstanding, all of which would be presented simultaneously and dishonoured, and that would mean the financial bankruptcy of Great Britain. They succeeded in convincing the 44 "not know-how" nations, but I do not think they convinced Lord Keynes, who had a mercantile sense and knew how little mercantile sense the Americans had. At the rate they are now going on, they never will have any. The other argument was the extreme one that at the end of the war, in contrast with the British position, the Americans would have circulated 35 billion dollars of expenditure by the American Forces overseas, which would be a glorious amount of spending power to form the kitty for the world currency system of the gold-based dollar.
Both expectations have been falsified. The £3,000 millions of what we now call


sterling balances—I could never understand why—were not presented simultaneously, and still less dishonoured. As for the 35 billion dollars, they all went home long ago, because for physical reasons, America alone in the world was able to satisfy the world's hunger for real goods, particularly manufactured articles. Both premises upon which the Americans based the claim for the gold-based dollar currency have been completely falsified in the event, and we are thus no longer bound to honour this thing.
This evening I went to a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and heard the Premier of Queensland telling about sugar negotiations contemporaneously going on, and giving a meeting of Members of Parliament to understand that the sugar people from every country are thinking seriously in terms of the international monetary conditions of the early '30s, when an abundance of sugar could not get to the people who needed it in other countries purely and simply for monetary reasons. If all that is coming back again, it is a convincing argument against an international gold standard.
The pleading of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and myself ought to commend itself to the Economic Secretary. Just before the war he did something tremendous which had never been done before in the Labour movement. I speak with 43 years' experience of that movement. He put one over Transport House good and proper. I forget the name of it, but he wrote a pamphlet, some of which might have been written by me or my friend, Major Douglas. It bore the imprimatur of Transport House and the name of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I wish he were his pre-war self instead, of what he has since become.
After all, this state of affairs is pretty serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich used the phrase "an instrument of American policy." We in this House are not Americans; we are Englishmen or Britishers. Why should we not stick up for our own country and strive for an international monetary system to promote British and not American interests. I would even add the plea not merely that His Majesty's Government should go to the length of making what my hon.

Friend the Member for Ipswich called "proper representations in the appropriate quarter" but that the Treasury should call together the whole of the British Empire countries to work out a scheme for the unilateral denunciation of the gold clause of the Washington Agreement. I am convinced that that would do nothing but good. The great argument against all this gold nonsense is that we cannot expand the quantity of gold as fast as the scientists and inventors can expand the quantity of goods. That is the economic argument, but there is a political argument also.
It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Smith: There is a political argument also, namely, that we in this little island with its tremendous population have somehow or other to feed our people, and we shall not do that so long as we assent to an international financial system calculated in the interests of Americans and not of our own countrymen.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I never embark upon economic waters without expectation of impending disaster. However, tonight I take comfort from the fact that the waters are full of submerged and sunken misguided economists.
I rise to put two or three short points only because I am anxious that the Economic Secretary shall have full time to reply on this exceedingly important subject, particularly as he has not availed himself of the opportunities which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has given him by Question in the past to give us the information we seek. He may be too wise. However, it is a fundamental and an important matter. In the answer given on 10th November, the Economic Secretary said:
As I have informed my hon. Friend before, the question of the dollar price of gold is a question for the Government of the United States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1410.]
I want to know when it became a matter for the United States to decide,


how it became a matter for the United States to decide, when this House was informed that that situation had arisen, and how it arose. So far as I can trace, the last information we had on the subject was in the Bretton Woods Agreement and in the terms of the Protocol of the International Monetary Fund. As I understand it, Article IV (2) provides that a gold price shall be fixed with a seller's margin and a buyer's margin varying slightly, and that that gold price was fixed and remained right up to devaluation at £8 12s. 3d. per fine ounce.
If that be so, then it is a matter for the International Monetary Fund to decide, and it is a matter of fundamental importance to this House because, if the price of gold is to be fixed by the United States Treasury and by nobody else, then the value of the £ is fixed by the United States Treasury, the dollar gap is fixed by the United States Treasury, the force—at the moment the adverse force—of American prices pressing against us is fixed by the United States Treasury. Only a fortnight ago we were informed that the textile industry is run by General McArthur, and we are entitled to know what limits have been set.
As I understand the matter—it is not easy—the price of gold is a matter for the International Monetary Fund. It is well to remember that when France devalued the franc in January, 1948, she established a free market in gold while at the same time remaining a member of the International Monetary Fund. It may be that was a breach of the agreement which was condoned in the circumstances, but at least it is material to remember, and it is right to remember, that this establishment of a free market in gold was one of the factors which adversely affected the £. It is only fair to the Economic Secretary and to my right hon. and learned Friend to say that they protested in the strongest terms at the time, and tried to take some steps to mitigate the effect.
There is one other important point. As my hon. Friend has said, the Commonwealth is the greatest world producer of gold excluding the U.S.S.R., which is as doubtful in this as in other matters. We produce something like 73 per cent. of the total gold production of the world. My hon. Friend said 60 per cent. in the ster-

ling area and 13 per cent. in Canada. There is no question whatever but that the acceptance of the price of gold at £8 12s. 3d. represented a real sacrifice on the part of the gold producers. My hon. Friend referred to the effect on South Africa. The effect on Australia was catastrophic. Coolgardie scarcely exists; as a town it is closed down. Kalgoorli has only two gold mines working—Lake View Star and Great Boulder; and over the rest of Australia there is very little gold production. The dominant question in Australia, when I was there last year, was when the price of gold would be increased and when the industrial areas which have been laid waste by this decision would be recreated.
Let me say at once to the Economic Secretary that we are so anxious to have a full report from him that if at any time he will indicate that he is anxious to speak, I will give way gracefully. I know that he wants to devote attention to the subject and to give us the full information we want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has said specifically in Questions which he has put in the House what he has to some extent repeated tonight. He has said that in 1948 40 million fine ounces of gold passed to the U.S.A. I do not know from where he gets his figure, but it was not contradicted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend has said that the price of gold on the free market was, at the time of his Question in the House, from £22 10s. to £24 per fine ounce. He has given the specific figure that if we accept that basis it will give to the sterling area something like a £560 million advantage or, indeed, would completely balance the dollar gap.
That is an extremely bold and most important assertion to make, and it is just not good enough for the Financial Secretary to get up tonight and say, "We do not know whether, if the price were higher, it would all pass to the United States." It is not good enough, for two reasons. Why not let us try and see anyhow; and if it does not pass, we would still have the gold in the sterling area which could be used to bolster up the pound.
We are constantly being reminded, and rightly so, of the generous and statesman-


like action which the United States are taking in international affairs. Both sides of the House pay tribute to it. It is comon ground among most of us that the United States are taking a very international and very public-spirited attitude in international affairs. But we are entitled to say, when we are being faced with this dollar gap, that if it be the fact that the dollar gap has been artificially inflated by the Agreement of 1945, the time has come for revision.
I am asking the Economic Secretary to say what steps are being taken to raise this matter; what instructions have been given to our representative on the International Monetary Fund; what is the view of the authorities in this matter; what, in his view, is the accuracy or otherwise of the figures which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has given in such detail? I am asking bun to say whether or not the facts now put are correct and, if so, what he is going to do about it.

10.7 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I have listened with attention, and much interest, to the speeches of all my three hon. Friends. I hope that their speeches will be noted both inside this House and outside, by all who are interested in this subject.
I should like first to comment on some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Norman Smith). As far as I understood him, he asked the Government to repudiate the Bretton Woods Agreement. He gave as a reason for that the assertion, which I do not accept, that we had already repudiated the convertibility and the non-discrimination clauses of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement of December, 1945. The first comment I would make on that is, of course, that the Bretton Woods Agreement is a treaty between a number of nations and was approved by this House in December, 1945, whereas the Anglo-American Financial Agreement was simply an agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States; the convertibility and non-discrimination clauses were part of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement and not of the Bretton Woods Agreement.

Mr. Norman Smith: Clause 4 of the 1945 Agreement referred to recognition of the pound and dollar respectively in terms of gold.

Mr. Jay: The simple point I was making was that the non-discrimination clause, and the convertibility obligation, were parts of the agreement between the United States and this country. I cannot accept that either of those clauses have been unilaterally repudiated by the United Kingdom.
I think my hon. Friend will remember that in August, 1947, conversations took place between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments about the convertibility provision, and the action which the United Kingdom Government took was taken with the knowledge of, and after consultation with, the Government of the United States.

Mr. Stokes: Surely my hon. Friend will be the first to recognise—in fact, he said so—that the loan was going on for more years than he thought, and when His Majesty's Government found themselves in the position in which some of us foresaw they would find themselves, they did, in fact, repudiate it. Of course, they did it quite decently; it was a decent repudiation.
Mr. Jay: I am asserting that that clause was not unilaterally repudiated by the United Kingdom. I think my hon. Friend also forgets that the non-discrimination clause refers to a much narrower point than is sometimes realised. It refers simply to the use of import quotas on goods imported into the United Kingdom on the one hand, or into the United States on the other hand. I could not agree that we have repudiated or disregarded that clause. The exact application of it is, of course, a matter of interpretation; we have often discussed the interpretation with the United States Government and, no doubt, we shall continue to do so.
My hon. Friend the junior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) raised the question, which I think is the essential one at issue, of the responsibility for the dollar price of gold. I think that is also relevant to most of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) because it is crucial to the issue of what exactly he was asking the Government of the United Kingdom to do. The facts


are as follow. The dollar price of gold is, of course, and always must be, primarily the responsibility of the United States Government, because it is the buying price of gold for the United States Treasury. That is and must be so.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Stokesrose —

Mr. Jay: I had better continue. The legal position in the United States, under the American Bretton Woods Act, 1945, is that the American Government can only alter the dollar price of gold with, firstly, the consent of Congress, and secondly, the approval of the International Monetary Fund. That applies to all countries which are members of the International Monetary Fund. But I think the fact which my hon. Friend omitted to notice was that a change in the par value, as it is called, of any member country's currency can only be proposed to the International Monetary Fund by that country. A change in the dollar price of gold, therefore, could only take place if such a proposal were put to the International Monetary Fund by the United States Government.

Mr. Stokes: May I interrupt? Really that is evading the issue. It is clearly laid down in the regulations that the £ is to have a fixed value in relation to the dollar, the price of which was fixed in relation to gold. I do not dispute, and neither do my hon. Friends, that the American Treasury may fix the dollar price of gold. They can state the price at which they will not buy, but under these regulations they may even alter the price of gold. That is what I consider so "phoney." We produce a great volume of gold in the sterling area, but under the regulations we cannot alter the price of gold except by approval of a majority of the International Monetary Fund of which America holds 30 per cent. of the votes.

Mr. Jay: I was just pointing out what the position is under the Bretton Woods Agreement to which we adhere. The dollar price of gold can only be altered if there is a proposal to that effect by the American Government. Exactly in the same way, the sterling price of gold, which is the responsibility of the British Government, can only be altered if there is a proposal by the British Government to the International Monetary Fund, and

which is then approved by the Fund, as actually occurred in September. Therefore, it follows that it could not be a responsibility of the British Government to propose to the International Monetary Fund any alteration in the dollar price, because it would be out of order to make such a proposal to that Fund. I think we ought to be clear about those basic facts which arise from the Bretton Woods Agreement and from the constitution of the Fund. We shoud also recall that—

Mr. Hale: I am not yet clear on this point. Do I understand that it is not possible for Great Britain to put before the International Monetary Fund a proposal for an alteration in the sterling price of gold? If such an alteration were assented to by all the other signatories as against the United States, would that not automatically and inevitably involve an adjustment of the dollar price of gold?

Mr. Jay: Surely the position is clear. It is within the authority of the United Kingdom to propose to the International Monetary Fund a change in the sterling price of gold, which was what occurred in September, and which did not result in any change in the dollar price of gold. The United States is in exactly the same position. It can propose to the International Monetary Fund a change in the dollar price of gold, which need not necessarily have a corresponding effect on the sterling price of gold.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend a question which I have asked him about 25 times at Question Time? What is to stop us proposing to the International Monetary Fund that with today's relationship between the £ sterling and the dollar, the price of gold from the sterling area should be put up to £30 per fine ounce?

Mr. Jay: What is to stop us proposing to the International Monetary Fund an alteration in the dollar price of gold, is Article IV, Section 5, of the Bretton Woods Agreement. There is nothing whatever to prevent us from proposing, if we wish, that the sterling price of gold should be altered, but, as I understood my hon. Friend, the main issue which he has raised tonight is the question of the dollar price of gold.

Mr. Stokes: That is no answer.

Mr. Jay: I was going on to say that on that issue we should also remember that the President of the United States said clearly, on 10th November, that so long as he was President the price of gold, by which he meant the dollar price of gold, would remain the same—

Mr. Stokes: Then he will have to go.

Mr. Jay: —an important pronouncement which I think we must take into account.
In these circumstances I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to follow my hon. Friend very far in his very interesting argument on the question of whether it is desirable from the point of view of the sterling area that the dollar price of gold should be higher, or lower. I take note of what he said. I would only point out now that in some respects the question is perhaps not so simple as he has suggested. It is, of course, true that if the dollar price of gold were raised, the gold reserves and the gold production of the sterling area would become more valuable in terms of dollars.
I think my hon. Friend, however, overlooked the fact that one of the effects of a rise in the dollar price of gold would in all probability, though it is not certain, be a rise in the dollar price of commodities in the United States. It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that because the gold production of the sterling area would earn more dollars, it would earn more wheat, timber and cotton and other commodities which we buy from the dollar area. That is a question which could be debated, and I mention it only to suggest to my hon. Friend that the issue is perhaps a little more complicated than he suggested.

Mr. Stokes: I tried to explain to my hon. Friend that that is precisely what would not happen. The price of wheat today is four times more than before the war. We pay 16s. a bushel for wheat from America today whereas before the war we paid 4s. a bushel. America is paying only 70 percent. more for her gold. The whole position is completely out of proportion. If America really wants, as she says, to get the world into balance she should agree to the revaluing of gold at 70 dollars per fine ounce as a minimum.

Mr. Jay: The fact that the price of wheat has risen more than the price of gold over the last 10 years does not prove that a further rise in the dollar price of gold would not cause a further rise in the dollar price of commodities. Experience, I think, suggests that a rise in the price of gold does, sooner or later, lead to a rise in the price of commodities. I would refer my hon. Friend to the events in the years 1933 and 1934 when he will remember that that constantly happened.
The hon. Member for Oldham asked a question, which I should like to answer, about the actual events last September when the question of gold prices was raised by Mr. Havenga, the South African Finance Minister. Mr. Havenga tabled a resolution which suggested, not, of course, a change in the dollar price of gold, but that the Articles of Agreement of the Fund should not prevent the sale by any member Government of 50 per cent. of its gold production, in markets where it could obtain a premium over the official price. That was the essential resolution which he put forward. That resolution was discussed before the full Board of Governors, and they decided that it should be referred to a committee on gold, consisting of the governors from the countries most interested in the subject. In that committee there was unanimous agreement among all the members, including the British representative who was, of course, acting on our instructions, that the governors should be advised to refer—these were the actual words—
to the executive directors of the fund …
this subject
for the study of all relevant considerations and for report back to the Board of Governors.

Mr. Hale: Deliciously vague.

Mr. Jay: That recommendation was accepted. As my hon. Friend says, it was, in one respect, vague. But it was also comprehensive, as he will no doubt note.

Mr. Stokes: Comprehensively vague.

Mr. Jay: The Board of Governors accepted that resolution, and that study will continue. That is the actual story of the action taken by the International Monetary Fund, and of the instructions given by this Government at that time.
I would emphasise that the point at issue was not the dollar price of gold, but whether permission should be given to a member country to sell 50 per cent. of its gold in a market where a premium could be obtained.
I hope I have answered the questions asked and done something to clear up the question of the responsibility of the various member Governments of the fund. I should like in particular to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that we have taken note of the points he has raised and that we shall continue to study them. I hope also that they will be studied outside this House.

Mr. Stokes: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him to answer a perfectly simple question? I put a perfectly clear statement to him as to what would have happened if we had increased the value of gold. On the exchanges

which took place last year we should have got £321 million more towards the estimated gap this year of £478 million. Will the Economic Secretary answer why we should not increase the sterling price of gold in order to achieve that desirable end?

Mr. Jay: I thought that the mathematics of my hon. Friend rested on the fallacy of ignoring the rise in the price of commodities which would follow a rise in the price of gold. Since it is impossible to estimate the rise in the price of commodities, it would be impossible to make a statistical estimate of the effect on the dollar gap of any given rise in the dollar price of gold. It is quite impossible to give an arithmetical answer to that question.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes past Ten o'Clock.